Accreditation Requirements in 668.43 (Public)

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

Note: The inline text preview is truncated for page performance. The underlying `/doc/174447300.txt` route still works directly.

68626

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 602, and 668
[Docket ID ED–2026–OPE–1042]
RIN 1840–AD82

Accreditation, Innovation, and
Modernization: The Secretary’s
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies;
Institutional Eligibility Under the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as
Amended; Student Assistance General
Provisions
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary

Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department revises the

existing accrediting agency recognition
regulations to implement the directives
set forth in Executive Order 14279,
Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen
Higher Education, and other
Administration priorities, align the
regulations more closely with statute,
and reduce regulatory burden.
DATES: This final rule is effective July 1,
2027.
Implementation dates: For the
implementation dates of the regulatory
provisions, see the Implementation Date
of These Regulations of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information related to
recognition of accrediting agencies,
Elizabeth Daggett, Director,
Accreditation Group, Office of
Postsecondary Education, Telephone:
(202) 453–7615. Email:
[email protected]. For all other
information related to this document,
Aaron Washington, Office of
Postsecondary Education, Telephone:
(202) 987–0911. Email:
[email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability and wish to
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
1. Summary of Major Provisions
2. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. Purpose of this Regulatory Action
III. Background
IV. Implementation Date of These
Regulations
V. Authority for the Regulatory Action
VI. Analysis of Public Comments and
Changes
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
Including Regulatory Impact Analysis
a. Need for Regulatory Action
b. Summary of Comments and Changes
From the NPRM

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

c. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and
Transfers
d. Accounting Statement
e. Alternatives Considered
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
4. Congressional Review Act
Intergovernmental Review
Assessment of Education Impact
Federalism

I. Executive Summary
The Secretary of Education recognizes
accrediting agencies under existing
regulations at 34 CFR part 602 to ensure
that agencies are reliable authorities
regarding the quality of education or
training offered by the institutions or
programs they accredit for the purposes
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA), or for other Federal
purposes. Recognized institutional
accrediting agencies serve as key
gatekeepers in determining which
institutions may participate in the
Federal student aid programs, which
currently provide more than $100
billion in Pell Grants and Federal
student loans annually. To ensure that
the Department only recognizes those
accrediting agencies focused on highquality, valuable education for students,
we are realigning the regulations for
recognition of accrediting agencies to
have a greater focus on student
achievement and ensure programs
provide a high-quality, high-value
education.
The final rule removes unnecessary
requirements on agencies and the
institutions or programs they accredit.
These regulations eliminate
requirements not required by statute,
including the ‘‘two-year rule’’ for initial
recognition of agencies, prescriptive site
visit mandates, unnecessary
documentation requirements, and rigid,
overly long processing and procedural
timelines.
These commonsense regulations also
address the barriers that limit
institutions from adopting practices that
advance credential and degree
completion and spur new models of
education. They also remove existing
regulatory barriers impeding
institutions’ ability to change
accrediting agencies or work with more
than one accrediting agency, while
agencies will have more flexibility to
apply certain standards that meet the
needs of their accredited institutions
and programs.
The final rule also introduces a new
review framework for better oversight of
key institutional accrediting agencies
that serve as the primary gatekeepers for
the Federal student aid programs, and
whose potential failures pose the
greatest risk to taxpayers.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Additionally, to reduce administrative
costs that are negatively impacting
college affordability, the final rule
requires recognized accrediting agencies
to apply their standards in ways that
minimize institutional administrative
burden, avoid duplicative reporting, and
support the implementation of lowercost, higher-value educational models.
These changes also will shift the focus
of institutions toward more costeffective practices for staffing, facilities,
student services, and program design.
The final rule promotes greater
integrity in decision making by
recognized accrediting agencies and
eliminates previous regulatory
exceptions that pose potential conflicts
of interest. The final rule also eliminates
geographic-scope distinctions for
institutional accrediting agencies and
makes other anticompetitive behavior a
negative factor in consideration of
agency recognition.
The final rule reinforces the existing
legal, constitutional, civil rights, and
consumer protection obligations already
required of recognized accrediting
agencies and the institutions and
programs that they accredit. For
example, under the final rule,
accrediting agencies recognized by the
Secretary must ensure that the
institutions and programs they accredit
have and apply policies consistent with
all Federal and State laws and respond
appropriately to findings of
noncompliance by competent
authorities. The final rule also prevents
recognized accrediting agencies from
applying standards that direct
accredited institutions and programs to
violate such laws. New student outcome
and program-level performance
expectations for the applications of
agency standards will focus both
accrediting agencies and institutions on
important objective measures of student
and institution performance such as
course completion, licensure pass rates,
and economic returns.
Further, the final rule addresses the
persistent and costly issues with
transfer of credit policies that have
burdened students. These regulations
reduce the likelihood that students will
be required to undertake duplicative
coursework and incur additional tuition
charges that are not necessary. Although
institutions will continue to have
latitude to deny transfer of credit based
on the credit failing to meet the
receiving institutions’ standards,
institutions will have to explain those
standards and provide written reasoning
to the student for such denial. These
regulations also require greater
transparency before a student decides to
transfer to another institution, so he or

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

she can have a full understanding of the
scope and cost of transferring to that
institution.
Taken together, this student-oriented
final rule realigns the Secretary’s
recognition of accrediting agencies with
a high-quality, high-value education
that is free from unlawful
discrimination and other violations of
Federal law.
1. Summary of Major Provisions
These final regulations:
• Amend § 600.11 to make it less
burdensome for institutions that are
changing accrediting agencies or wish to
utilize more than one accrediting
agency.
• Amend § 602.2 to require the
Department to provide public notice on
its accreditation website if the Secretary
denies continued recognition to a
previously recognized agency, or if the
Secretary limits, suspends, or terminates
the agency’s recognition before the end
of its recognition period.
• Amend § 602.3 to define and use
the term ‘‘institution’’ in these
regulations instead of ‘‘institution of
higher education’’ which is defined in
the HEA, and elsewhere in the
Department’s regulations, referring to a
narrower subset of institutions, and to
add a definition for ‘‘related, associated,
or affiliated trade association.’’
• Amend § 602.10 to clarify that the
Secretary’s recognition extends only to
those accrediting agencies whose
institutions or programs actively
participate in a Federal program.
• Amend § 602.11 to require
accrediting agencies to clearly describe
the scope of their accrediting activities
and remove geographic restrictions that
restrict institutions and programs from
choosing an accrediting agency.
• Amend § 602.12 to remove
references to geographic areas and
geographic constraints and require
review of contractions of scope.
Additionally, amend the regulations to
clarify the policies and capacity an
accrediting agency must have to seek
initial recognition, and eliminates the
‘‘two-year rule’’ for initial recognition.
• Unreserve and amend § 602.13 to
specify that an accrediting agency’s
recognition by the Department does not
provide any immunity from antitrust
laws.
• Amend § 602.14 to strengthen the
fiscal and administrative criteria an
accrediting agency must meet to prove
it is fully separate and independent
from any related, associated, or
affiliated trade or membership
organization.
• Amend § 602.15 to require
accrediting agencies to administer their

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

standards, policies, and procedures in a
manner that minimizes unnecessary
compliance costs and administrative
burdens on accredited institutions, as
well as require agencies to maintain
appropriate conflict of interest controls
and policies.
• Amend § 602.16 to codify that an
agency may establish additional lawful
accreditation standards that are
consistent with ensuring institutional or
programmatic quality and integrity as it
deems appropriate.
• Amend § 602.17 to clarify
expectations for reviewing student
achievement and faculty related
policies, including academic freedom
and intellectual diversity. Additionally,
add new requirements regarding
institutional cost-benefit analyses,
institutional flexibility and mission,
program length review, and safeguards
against misrepresentation.
• Amend § 602.18 to require that
accrediting agency decisions be neutral
with respect to viewpoint and ideology,
except for agencies with a religious
mission.
• Amend § 602.20 to provide
guidance to accrediting agencies on how
to structure their arbitration procedures
and remove overly prescriptive
requirements.
• Amend § 602.21 to remove overly
prescriptive review requirements.
• Amend § 602.22 to refine the list of
changes requiring agency approval, add
prison education programs as a defined
substantive change, and remove
outdated and overly prescriptive
requirements.
• Amend § 602.23 to require
accrediting agencies to ensure
institutions comply with all applicable
Federal and State laws and remove
overly prescriptive requirements.
• Amend § 602.24 to strengthen
accrediting agencies’ oversight of
institutional changes, expand
requirements for teach-out planning,
including transcript access, and increase
transparency and support for students
when institutions face disruptions.
• Amend § 602.24 to establish clearer,
fairer rules for credit transfer by
defining consistent criteria, prohibiting
discriminatory denials, requiring
acceptance of comparable credits, and
providing students with an appeals
process.
• Amend § 602.25 to remove overly
prescriptive requirements for
demonstrating due process.
• Amend § 602.26 to update and
modernize the required content of
agency notices and better align these
requirements with contemporary
methods of disclosure and allow
temporary continuation of eligibility for

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68627

title IV, HEA funds for institutions to
exhaust all due process options.
• Amend § 602.27 to require agencies
to update the Department’s website on
a regular, timely basis to display the
current accreditation status of all
institutions and programs.
• Amend § 602.28 to broaden the
circumstances under which an
accrediting agency must re-evaluate an
institution or program following
negative actions by other authorities.
• Amend § 602.30 to modernize how
accrediting agencies submit applications
and reports to the Department.
• Amend § 602.32 and split into two
sections: § 602.31 and § 602.32.
• Amend § 602.31 to modernize and
streamline the procedures accrediting
agencies must follow when submitting
applications for initial or renewed
recognition.
• Amend § 602.32 to modernize and
clarify the processes used to review an
accrediting agency’s expansion or
contraction of scope, compliance report,
and increase in headcount enrollment.
• Amend § 602.33 to modernize and
streamline the procedures for review of
agencies during the period of
recognition, including the review of
monitoring reports.
• Amend § 602.34 to require the
National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI or Advisory Committee) to
review applications for contractions of
scope, and for accrediting agencies to
post public notice of upcoming NACIQI
reviews.
• Amend §§ 602.35, 602.36, and
602.37 to update cross references.
• Amend § 668.43 to require transfer
of credit disclosures and direct
applicable written notices to students.
2. Summary of Costs and Benefits
As further detailed in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA), the final rule
includes numerous provisions that may
impact students, institutions,
accrediting agencies, and the Federal
government. Specifically, the final rule
includes provisions related to transfer of
credit policies, which may benefit
students by making it easier for students
to transfer credits to continue their
postsecondary enrollment at a new
institution. Students will likely benefit
from these changes by spending less
time and money retaking courses that
failed to transfer, whereas institutions
may experience costs due to the
suspected foregone tuition revenue from
transfer students.
The final rule also encourages
accrediting agencies to include new
criteria that evaluate program and
institutional outcomes. This may

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68628

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

impose new costs on accrediting
agencies, which may need to develop
such criteria, and on institutions, which
may need to implement changes to meet
such criteria. Furthermore, the final rule
will remove several barriers for new
accrediting agencies to emerge and
obtain Department recognition, which
may ultimately benefit accrediting
agencies through the reduction in
administrative burden to gain initial
recognition and maintain recognition.
Additionally, the final rule would also
require accrediting agencies to adopt
several new policies and procedures
that aim to increase college affordability
and innovation, while also putting
downward pressure on credential
inflation. Students may benefit from
these provisions if the changes result in
more affordable and flexible educational
opportunities.
As noted in the RIA, the Department
does not estimate a significant net
budget impact on the title IV, HEA
Federal student aid programs from the
final rule. In prior regulations 1 the
Department estimated the accreditation
reform would result in an increased
number of applications for recognition
due to easier recognition of new
accrediting agencies. Increased petitions
are also expected given an expanded
scope to new credential levels, and the
option for alternative standards to allow
for faster introduction of innovative
programs. In 2019, we did not estimate
a significant change in repayment
performance as institutions with less
favorable program outcomes could find
more lenient accrediting agencies.
Institutions with strong programs can
take advantage of the flexibility allowed
by the substantive change policy
revisions to expand their program
offerings. At the time we noted the
uncertainty of the extent to which
increasing accreditation options and
encouraging program innovation would
shift Federal loan and grant volumes
among more options for students versus
generating new volume, and that
uncertainty remains. Additionally,
greater acceptance of transfer credits
may increase Federal grant and loan
volumes by encouraging some students
to complete degrees but also may reduce
volumes by credits being recognized by
the institutions receiving transfers. In
retrospect, we know the number of
institutions that changed agencies was
1 Student Assistance General Provisions, The
Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies,
The Secretary’s Recognition Procedures for State
Agencies—84 CFR 58834—https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/01/
2019-23129/student-assistance-general-provisionsthe-secretarys-recognition-of-accrediting-agenciesthe.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

fairly low and it is difficult to attribute
particular changes in volume to
accreditation reforms given other
economic, demographic, and
programmatic developments during the
same period.
II. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
In accordance with Executive Order
(E.O.) 14279, this regulatory action
realigns the Secretary’s criteria for
recognition of accrediting agencies to
promote high-quality, high value, and
affordable education for students that—
• Promotes such academic programs
and activities at higher education
institutions that are focused on student
outcomes and are free from unlawful
discrimination and other violations of
Federal law;
• Reduces barriers that limit
competition, innovation, and new
education models that advance
credential and degree completion;
• Holds institutions accountable for
discrimination and other unlawful acts;
and
• Advances academic freedom,
intellectual inquiry, and student
learning by ensuring that accreditation
requires that institutions support and
prioritize intellectual diversity among
faculty.
III. Background
Section 496 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires
the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to
establish criteria for determining
whether an accrediting agency is a
reliable authority, for purposes of
participation in programs authorized
under the HEA and other Federal
programs, on the quality of education or
training offered by the institutions and
programs that they accredit. Such
criteria are required to include
appropriate measures of student
achievement.
Consistent with the statute, the
Secretary has established regulations for
recognition of accrediting agencies at 34
CFR part 602 and has revised these
regulations periodically.
E.O. 14279, titled ‘‘Reforming
Accreditation to Strengthen Higher
Education,’’ issued on April 23, 2025,
by President Trump, directs the
Secretary to take several actions related
to the recognition of accrediting
agencies or associations by the
Department. Some of these actions
require changes to existing regulations.
These regulatory changes realign the
Secretary’s criteria for recognition of
accrediting agencies to promote highquality, high value, and affordable
education for students that—

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

• Promotes such academic programs
and activities at higher education
institutions that are focused on student
outcomes and are free from unlawful
discrimination and other violations of
Federal law;
• Reduces barriers that limit
competition, innovation, and new
education models that advance
credential and degree completion;
• Holds institutions accountable for
discrimination and other unlawful acts;
and
• Advances academic freedom,
intellectual inquiry, and student
learning by ensuring that accrediting
agencies review institutional policies in
these areas.
Specifically, the Executive Order
directs the Secretary to—
• Resume recognition of new
accrediting agencies to foster
competition and expand institutional
options; and
• Mandate that accrediting agencies
require member institutions to use data
on program-level student outcomes to
improve such outcomes, without
reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.
The Department undertook this
rulemaking in part to address the goals
contained within the Executive Order,
but also to propose substantive changes
that would reform the static and
outdated higher education
accountability system. The final rule is
intended to increase competition among
accrediting agencies by reducing
barriers to entry, facilitating
institutional mobility among recognized
agencies, and reducing regulatory
requirements that may unnecessarily
discourage the formation of innovative
accrediting organizations and other
related practices. Increased competition
is expected to improve institutional
responsiveness, reduce accreditation
costs over time, and encourage greater
innovation in the market for quality
assurance validation.
Increasing competition among
recognized accrediting agencies is likely
to improve the quality, responsiveness,
and effectiveness of accreditation.
Accreditation has historically seen very
little competition because it evolved
from voluntary membership peer review
groups to set uniform academic
standards within those groups.
Institutional accrediting agencies rarely
engage in head-to-head competition;
institutions face difficulty in changing
accrediting agencies due to high
switching costs and potential risks in
maintaining eligibility for Federal
student aid for their students; and there
are regulatory barriers to the recognition
of new agencies. During negotiated
rulemaking, the Department explained

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
that competition among accrediting
agencies is expected to generally
improve quality and expand choices for
institutions.
Competition creates incentives for
agencies to innovate, respond to
workforce changes, expand choices for
institutions among agencies engaged in
various types of innovative activities,
and to develop new measures for
assessing student success by
institutions.
As explained by a Department
economist during negotiated
rulemaking, there is a high
concentration of institutions that are
accredited by a handful of institutional
accrediting agencies. The Department
recognizes that empirical evidence
measuring the causal effect of
institutions changing accrediting
agencies is limited. Because institutions
have historically rarely switched
agencies, and those that do may differ
systematically from those that do not, it
is difficult to isolate the independent
effect of changing agencies on
institutional outcomes. Moreover,
previous regulatory barriers have
resulted in too few agency switches to
permit rigorous statistical analysis. The
absence of such evidence, however,
does not undermine the broader
economic evidence concerning the
benefits of competition in quality
assurance markets.
Economic research has consistently
found that competition encourages
innovation and improved performance.
Joseph Schumpeter argued that
competition produces ‘‘creative
destruction’’ that drives innovation by
creating new markets that render older
ones obsolete, and more recent
empirical work has found that
introducing competition into
concentrated markets substantially
increases innovation. The Department
believes these findings are relevant
because higher education accreditation
has historically exhibited many
characteristics of an uncompetitive
market.
Competition is also expected to
improve the informational value of
accreditation. During negotiated
rulemaking, the Department explained
that institutions seek credible signals of
educational quality, and that in a
competitive accreditation market,
agencies would compete to provide
those signals. Rather than offering only
a binary ‘‘approved/not approved’’
determination, competing accrediting
agencies may distinguish themselves by
offering scaled ratings for institutional
quality. On April 14, 2026, during
opening remarks for negotiated

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

rulemaking, the Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education stated:
‘‘Competition will include
competition for relevance and
universities will signal their quality
level through accreditation . . . Current
accrediting agencies give universities
and colleges pass-fail grades which
provide very little useful information.’’ 2
This concern was further underscored
in a recent decision letter from the
Senior Department Official (SDO) to an
accrediting agency, which cautioned
that accreditation can devolve into a
bureaucratic, ‘‘check-the-box’’ exercise
in which meaningful, substantive
feedback is replaced by a binary
determination of compliance.3 The
official emphasized that accreditation
should serve as a process that not only
assesses compliance with minimum
standards but also identifies
opportunities for institutions and
programs to strengthen their operations
and improve educational quality.
This reasoning is consistent with the
economic literature on certification
intermediaries. In ‘‘Information
Revelation and Certification
Intermediaries’’, Alessandro Lizzeri 4
demonstrates that monopolistic
certifiers have incentives to reveal only
limited information, whereas
competition among certifiers results in
more informative quality signals.
Similarly, in ‘‘The Effect of Information
on Product Quality: Evidence from
Restaurant Hygiene Grade Cards’’ Giner
Zhe Jin and Phillip Leslie [4] found that
more detailed quality information
improves quality outcomes.
A recent paper provides additional
support for the Department’s efforts to
promote competition among accrediting
agencies. Hatfield and Lowery 5 develop
a theoretical model of certification
markets, with particular attention to
higher education accreditation. They
find that monopoly accrediting agencies
have incentives to establish inefficiently
low-quality standards and impose
2 Opening Remarks—David Barker—Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary
Education—https://www.ed.gov/media/document/
2026-negotiated-rulemaking-aim-transcripts-day-2am-113991.pdf
3 Senior Department Official/Secretary’s Decision
Letter to the Commission on Massage Therapy
Accreditation date October 21, 2026—https://
surveys.ope.ed.gov/erecognition/#/publicdocuments
4 Alessandro Lizzeri, Information Revelation and
Certification Intermediaries, The RAND Journal of
Economics. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 214–
231.
5 John William Hatfield and Richard Lowery, Quis
Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Competition, Quality,
and Bias in Certification Markets, Working paper,
University of Texas at Austin, October 2, 2026.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=7527099

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68629

institutional requirements unrelated to
educational quality. Competition can
raise quality standards and reduce such
requirements. The authors further
demonstrate that entry by an accrediting
agency with preferences different from
those of incumbent agencies can
produce substantially greater
improvements in quality and reductions
in bias than entry by an otherwise
similar agency.
These findings support the
Department’s efforts to reduce barriers
to entry, facilitate institutions’ ability to
change accrediting agencies, and
encourage competition among agencies
with different approaches to evaluating
educational quality. Although the study
is theoretical, it provides an economic
basis for concluding that greater
competition can improve accreditation’s
effectiveness in protecting students and
taxpayers while preserving institutional
autonomy and encouraging innovation.6
Competition can also strengthen,
rather than weaken, quality of
institutions and programs. During
negotiated rulemaking, the Department
explained that in instances where only
one recognized accrediting agency
effectively serves a sector, the
withdrawal of recognition may
significantly disrupt institutions and
students, making it more difficult to
impose such a penalty. By contrast,
when multiple recognized agencies are
available, institutions have viable
alternatives, reducing barriers to
enforcement. As the Department stated
during negotiated rulemaking:
‘‘With regional and programmatic
monopolies, withdrawal of recognition
can throw industries into chaos . . .’’ If
the accreditation market is competitive,
institutions can more easily switch
accrediting agencies, which reduces
incentives to continue the recognition of
an agency out of fear of potential
adverse fallout in the market.’’ While
some hesitation to withdraw recognition
may always be present, the Department
believes that the more alternative
accrediting agencies are available, the
less hesitant the Department will be to
derecognize agencies out of worry over
market disruption.7 The Department
believes competition will increase
accountability both for institutions and
for accrediting agencies themselves.
Finally, competition will encourage
innovation in accreditation. Accrediting
agencies that face meaningful
competition will have stronger
6 Ibid.
7 Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization
(AIM) Committee—4/14/26 (page 10)—https://
www.ed.gov/media/document/2026-negotiatedrulemaking-aim-transcripts-day-2-am-113991.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68630

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

incentives to develop new approaches
to quality assurance, reduce
unnecessary costs, respond to
institutional diversity, and improve
services to institutions and students. As
explained in the Department’s written
responses during negotiated rulemaking,
barriers to switching generally reduce
competition and increase market power
through a lock-in effect. Eliminating or
reducing those barriers promotes
innovation and responsiveness.
For these reasons, the Department
finds that reducing unnecessary barriers
to competition among qualified
accrediting agencies is likely to improve
accreditation over time while preserving
the Department’s responsibility to
establish minimum standards for
Federal recognition. The Department
does not believe competition will cause
a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ but rather, the
opposite will likely occur. Recognized
accrediting agencies must continue to
satisfy all statutory and regulatory
recognition requirements, while
competing to provide higher quality
services, with more informative and
innovative quality assurance services.
As the Assistant Secretary stated during
negotiated rulemaking, ‘‘We shouldn’t
fear healthy competition. It is the basis
of a free market economy, and we need
more of it in the coddled, protected
business of higher education.’’ 8

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

IV. Implementation Date of These
Regulations
Generally, the regulations included in
this document are effective on July 1,
2027. Section 482(c) of the HEA requires
that the Department publish final
regulations affecting programs under
title IV of the HEA in final form by
November 1 to be effective for the next
award year (July 1 of the calendar year
following November 1).
However, the process for recognition
of accrediting agencies is multi-year and
the implementation of the changes to
these regulations in the recognition
process will require planning and
coordination between Department staff
and agencies who are seeking initial
recognition or renewal of existing
recognition prior to the July 1, 2027,
effective date.
The Department is providing the
following additional clarification of the
implementation timeline:
For recognized agencies that
submitted their applications for renewal
of recognition prior to July 1, 2026,
Department staff have been reviewing
8 Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization
(AIM Committee)—4/14/26 (page 10)—https://
www.ed.gov/media/document/2026-negotiatedrulemaking-aim-transcripts-day-2-am-113991.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

the applications under the regulations
that were in place prior to the
promulgation of these regulations. The
agencies will have an opportunity to
respond to the draft staff report when
completed. After receiving a response
from the agency on the draft staff report,
the Department will present its final
staff report on each application to the
Advisory Committee at the 2027
meetings and proposed first meeting of
2028, which will be based on
compliance with the regulations that
were in effect prior to the promulgation
of these regulations.
For agencies seeking initial
recognition that submitted their
application for recognition after July 1,
2026, those agencies must submit
applications for review based on
adherence to the requirements in these
revised regulations.
Additionally, Section 482(c)(2)
permits the Secretary to designate any
regulatory provision as one that an
entity subject to the regulations may
choose to implement earlier and the
conditions for early implementation. To
facilitate the implementation of these
final regulations, the Secretary is
designating all sections of this
regulation for early implementation
beginning on January 1, 2027, provided
that accrediting agencies that decide to
adopt any new provisions prior to July
1, 2027, do not impose new
requirements on institutions or
programs resulting from that early
implementation that would take effect
prior to July 1, 2027.
Because compliance with these
regulations may require accrediting
agencies to make substantive revisions
to their policies and procedures, which
may necessitate stakeholder notice and
comment periods and formal adoption
by an authorized decision-making body,
as well as training for agency staff and
peer reviewers responsible for
implementing the new requirements,
accrediting agencies are strongly
encouraged to initiate the necessary
revisions and training promptly to
ensure compliance with the new
requirements by the applicable effective
dates set forth herein.
V. Authority for the Regulatory Action
The authority for this rulemaking is
Section 496 of the HEA. Section 496(a)
of the HEA provides criteria that an
accrediting agency must meet for the
Secretary to recognize it as a reliable
authority as to the quality of education
or training offered. The same section
states that the Secretary shall, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing,
establish criteria for such
determinations.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Section 496(o) of the HEA directs the
Secretary to establish, through
regulation, procedures governing the
recognition of accrediting agencies and
the appeal of recognition decisions. At
the same time, Congress provided that
the Secretary shall not promulgate
regulations with respect to the standards
of an accrediting agency described in
Section 496(a)(5). The Department
interprets these provisions together to
mean that the Secretary may establish
recognition criteria governing whether
an accrediting agency functions as a
reliable authority under Section 496,
while leaving accrediting agencies the
responsibility for developing and
applying their own substantive
accreditation standards. Accordingly,
these regulations establish the criteria
the Secretary will use in determining
whether an accrediting agency qualifies
for Federal recognition. Except where
expressly required by statute, the
regulations do not prescribe the
substantive content of accreditation
standards, but instead establish
minimum expectations regarding the
processes, consistency, transparency,
and lawful administration of those
standards.
The Department has also reviewed
existing regulations considering Section
496(o). Where current regulations
prescribe requirements that extend
beyond recognition procedures and
instead direct the content or
administration of accrediting standards
without a clear statutory basis, the
Department removes or simplifies those
requirements to better align the
regulations with Congressional direction
and remove administrative burden.
Severability
‘‘It is axiomatic’’ that a regulation may
be invalid in part but not in whole or
as applied to one set of facts but not
another. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood
of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320, 329
(2006). If a court finds one part of a
regulation is unlawful, the ‘‘normal
rule’’ is to enjoin only that part. Id.
(quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades,
Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985).
It is the Department’s intent that if
any provision of this subpart or its
application to any person, act, or
practice is held invalid, the remainder
of the subpart or the application of its
provisions to any person, act, or practice
shall not be affected thereby.
Statutes and regulations are severable
if the separate provisions are ‘‘wholly
independent of each other’’ and can
operate independently. Brockett v.
Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491,
502 (1985). That is the case here. No
part herein will be affected if another

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

part is found to be unlawful. Nor does
the Department believe courts or
regulated parties would be unable to
apply the rule if one part is held invalid.
Cf. Dep’t of Educ. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S.
866, 868 (2024) (per curiam) (denying
the government’s request to stay a
preliminary injunction against an entire
rule where only parts were found to be
invalid because ‘‘schools would face in
determining how to apply the rule for a
temporary period with some provisions
in effect and some enjoined’’).
VI. Analysis of Public Comments and
Changes
On August 20, 2026, the Secretary
published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) for these
regulations in the Federal Register (91
FR 53940). The Department received
7,051 comments on the proposed
regulations. The Department has
grouped the comments by functional
topics and by similar themes. We
discuss substantive issues under the
sections of the regulations to which they
pertain. In instances where individual
submissions appeared to be duplicates
or near-duplicates of comments
prepared as part of a write-in campaign,
the Department posted one
representative sample comment along
with the total comment count for that
campaign to www.Regulations.gov,
which continues to be our standard
practice. We considered these
comments along with all the other
comments received. In instances where
individual submissions were bundled
together (submitted as a single
document or packaged together), the
Department posted all the substantive
comments included in the submissions
along with the total comment count for
that document or package to
www.Regulations.gov. Generally, we do
not address minor, non-substantive
changes (such as renumbering
paragraphs, adding a word, or
typographical errors) within this final
rule. Additionally, we generally do not
address changes or comments
recommended by commenters that the
statute does not authorize the Secretary
to make (such as forgiving all student
loans), or comments pertaining to
operational processes. Analysis of the
comments and of any changes in the
regulations since publication of the
NPRM (91 FR 53940) follows.
Process for Out-of-Scope Comments
The Department does not typically
address comments that are out-of-scope.
For purposes of this final rule, out-ofscope comments are those that are not
addressed in the NPRM (91 FR 53940)
altogether. Generally, comments that are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

outside of the scope of the NPRM (91 FR
53940) are comments that do not
discuss the content or impact of the
proposed regulations or the
Department’s evidence or reasons for
the proposed regulations.
Technical Corrections
The Department made no substantive
changes to the final rule, retaining the
text agreed upon by the negotiated
rulemaking committee and proposed in
the NPRM. The Department made the
following minor, non-substantive
technical edits to improve clarity of the
regulation.
602.2(b)—How do I know which
agencies the Secretary recognizes?
Discussion: The Department is
correcting a reference for clarity and to
conform with regulatory drafting
standards. The reference previously
read ‘‘published in the Federal Register
pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section,’’ and we are changing it to refer
to ‘‘paragraph (a) of this section.’’
Changes: The Department updated
paragraph (b) of this section to read as
follows after the words ‘‘Federal
Register’’: ‘‘. . . pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section.’’
§ 602.3—Definition of ‘‘Designated
Federal Official’’
Discussion: The Department is
correcting a reference that appears in
the definition of Designated Federal
Official. That definition previously
referenced section 10(f) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, which was
repealed by Section 7 of Public Law
117–286. This section, among several
others, was moved to a different section
of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10. The correct
reference should be 5 U.S.C. 1009(e).
Changes: The Department updated the
definition of Designated Federal Official
in § 602.3 to read: ‘‘Designated Federal
Official means the Federal officer
designated under 5 U.S.C. 1009(e).’’
§ 602.3—Definition of ‘‘Related,
Associated, or Affiliated Trade
Association’’
Discussion: The Department must
update the capitalization of the word
that begins each new paragraph under
in the definition of Related, associated,
or affiliated trade association with a
capital letter to conform with regulatory
drafting standards.
Changes: We updated the definition
to read as follows: ‘‘Related, associated,
or affiliated trade association means an
organization that:
(i) Is generally a membership
organization;

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68631

(ii) Is organized to promote a line of
commerce, business, industry, or
profession;
(iii) Does not engage in a regular
business of a kind ordinarily carried on
for profit, and no part of the net
earnings of which inures to the benefit
of any member; and
(iv) Is related to a particular
accrediting agency in that the agency
accredits institutions or programs that
prepare students to enter the workforce
of the same or substantially the same
line of commerce, business, industry, or
profession that organization promotes.’’
§ 602.3—Definition of ‘‘Representative
of the Public’’
Discussion: The Department must
update the Arabic numerals to Roman
numerals in the definition of
Representative of the public to conform
with regulatory drafting standards.
Changes: We have renumbered the
definition to read as follows:
‘‘Representative of the public means a
person who is not—
‘‘(i) 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;
(ii) A member of any trade association
or membership organization related to,
associated with, or affiliated with the
agency; or
(iii) A spouse, parent, child, or sibling
of an individual identified in paragraph
(i) or (ii) of this definition.’’
§ 602.15(d)—Administrative and Fiscal
Responsibilities
Discussion: The Department clarifies
that the requirements of the paragraph
are only in reference to ‘‘recognized’’
agencies.
Changes: The Department updated
§ 602.15(d) to read: ‘‘The agency will
cooperate with other recognized
agencies and the Department in the
development of common templates and
forms for institutions or programs to
submit when seeking to change
accrediting agencies.’’
§ 602.17(a)(1)(vii)(C), (a)(3) and
(a)(3)(i)—Application of Standards in
Reaching Accreditation Decisions
Discussion: The Department must
update incorrect cross references under
§ 602.17(a)(1)(vii)(C).
Changes: The Department updated
§ 602.17(a)(1)(vii)(C) to read: ‘‘(C) In the
case of a private institution, policies
that if established guarantee the same or
similar protections as those described in
subsections (A) and (B) above.’’

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68632

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Discussion: The Department must
update the cross reference in
§ 602.17(a)(3) from (vi) to (v) because we
intended to cross reference fiscal and
administrative capacity instead of
student support services. We also
updated § 602.17(a)(3)(i) to add a verb
with the stem and clarify who must
complete the cost/benefit analysis.
Changes: The Department updated the
provisions under § 602.17(a)(3) and
(a)(3)(i) to read:
‘‘(3) When applying its standards
according to § 602.16(a)(1)(iv) and (v),
conducts:
(i) A review of any cost/benefit
analysis performed by an institution.
Cost/benefit analysis means a review by
the agency of the institution’s budget,
resource utilization and allocation, and,
if existing, its business/strategic plan,
continuous improvement strategic plan,
and review of whether the institution
considers whether the expected benefits
of the institution’s activities justify the
associated financial, administrative, and
opportunity costs and the impact of
capital expenditures on future operating
expenses;’’
§ 602.21

Review of Standards

Discussion: The Department must
remove the word ‘‘is’’ before ‘‘relevant’’
because the word ‘‘is’’ was inadvertently
published in the NPRM.
Changes: The Department updated
§ 602.21 to read:
‘‘The agency must maintain a
comprehensive systematic program of
review that occurs at regular intervals,
involves all relevant constituencies
(including students), and that
demonstrates that its standards are
adequate to evaluate the quality of the
education or training provided by the
institutions and programs it accredits
and relevant to the educational or
training needs of students.’’

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

§ 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(H)—Substantive
Changes and Other Reporting
Requirements
Discussion: The Department must
italicize the Arabic numerals after
paragraph § 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(H) to
conform with regulatory drafting
standards.
Changes: The text will now appear as:
‘‘(1) Academic control by the
institution.
(2) The institution has adequate
faculty, facilities, resources, and
academic and student support systems
in place.
(3) The institution is financially
stable.
(4) The institution had appropriate
planning for the addition.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

§ 602.23(l)—Operating Procedures All
Agencies Must Have
Discussion: The Department must
update § 602.23(l) (1) and (2) so that the
word ‘‘or’’ appears after § 602.23(l)(2)
because agencies have the option to
choose one of the three structured
mechanisms for individuals to
communicate directly with an agency.
Changes: The Department updated the
paragraph to read:
‘‘(l) The agency must establish and
maintain at least one structured
mechanism through which currently
enrolled students, employed staff, and
employed faculty of accredited or
preaccredited institutions or programs
may communicate directly with the
agency concerns related to the agency’s
accreditation standards or the
institution’s or program’s compliance
therewith. Such mechanism(s) must be
designed to ensure that information
received is substantive and manageable
in volume. Permissible mechanisms
include, but are not limited to, any one
or more of the following:
(1) A registration process through
which students, staff, or faculty may
sign up to participate in structured
meetings with agency representatives
during scheduled site visits or virtual
visits, subject to reasonable limits on the
number of participants and appointment
availability;
(2) Randomized panels of students,
staff, or faculty selected by the
accrediting agency or its authorized
representatives to participate in
confidential interviews or focus groups
during site visits, conducted in a
manner that ensures a representative
cross-section of the institutional
community; or
(3) Student, faculty, and staff surveys
independently administered by the
agency as part of an initial or renewal
of accreditation process which
minimally address the standards areas
required by § 602.16(a).’’
§ 602.24(d)—Additional Procedures
Certain Institutional Agencies Must
Have
Discussion: The Department must
update the Roman numerals to Arabic
numerals to conform with regulatory
drafting standards. We must also update
§ 602.24(d)(2) to ensure there are no
institutions identified in any teach-out
plan.
Changes: The Department updated (d)
to read:
‘‘(d) Closed institution. If an
institution the agency accredits or
preaccredits closes without a teach-out
plan, the agency must work with the
Department and the appropriate State

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agency, to the extent feasible, to assist
students in finding reasonable
opportunities to complete their
education without additional charges,
including by—
(1) Working with institutions to
secure teach-out agreements; or
(2) Where a teach-out agreement
cannot be arranged, working with
institutions to secure transfer options;
(3) Making teach-out or transfer
options, the terms of such options, and
information on obtaining transcripts,
loan discharges, and reimbursement
publicly available on the agency’s
website; and
(4) Sharing such information with
appropriate State agencies and, as
applicable, with other recognized
accrediting agencies.’’
§ 602.27 Other Information an Agency
Must Provide Department
Discussion: The Department must
update the title of this section to correct
a typographical error by adding ‘‘the’’
after the word ‘‘provide’’ in the
amendatory language.
Changes: We updated the title of this
section to:
‘‘§ 602.27 Other information an
agency must provide the Department.’’
§ 602.30(a)(3)—Agency Applications
and Reports To Be Submitted to the
Department
Discussion: For consistency with
§ 602.16(d), we must add ‘‘direct
assessment education’’ to § 602.30(a)(3).
Changes: The Department updated
§ 602.30(a)(3) to read:
‘‘(3) Documentation of how an agency
that includes or seeks to include
distance education, correspondence
courses, or direct assessment education
in its scope of recognition applies its
standards in evaluating programs and
institutions it accredits that offer
distance education, correspondence
courses or direct assessment education.’’
§ 602.31(a)(3) and (a)(7)—Procedures for
Submitting Applications for Recognition
and Renewal of Recognition
Discussion: We must add ‘‘. . . the
Secretary determines that . . .’’ to
§ 602.31(a)(3) for consistency with the
other provisions in that section. We also
must add § 602.31(a)(7) to clearly state
the type of application required for
agencies seeking initial recognition.
Changes: We updated § 602.31(a)(3) to
read:
‘‘(3) If the Secretary determines that
an agency or its officers or directors
have been the subject of legal actions,
complaints, or other compliance issues
that individually or in the aggregate
raise substantial concerns regarding the

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
agency’s compliance with this part, the
agency must submit a comprehensive
application that addresses the agency’s
compliance with all criteria in subpart
B of this part.’’
We updated § 602.31(a)(7) to read:
‘‘(7) An agency submitting an
application for initial recognition must
submit a comprehensive application
that addresses the agency’s compliance
with all criteria in subpart B of this
part.’’
§ 602.31(b)(2)—Procedures for
Submitting Applications for Recognition
and Renewal of Recognition
Discussion: The proposed text
included an unclear reference to
‘‘subparagraph (1).’’ We have revised the
reference to be more specific and refer
to paragraph (b)(1) of the same section.
Changes: We updated § 602.36(d) to
read:
‘‘(2) Within 10 business days after
publication of the notice described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the
agency must publish the request for
information on the agency’s website to
include instructions on how the public
can submit information in response to
the request.’’
§ 602.36(d) Senior Department
Official’s Decision
Discussion: The Department must
amend § 602.36(d) by replacing ‘‘of’’ in
the current paragraph with ‘‘. . .
following the publication of transcripts
of . . .’’ to match the change made to
§ 602.35(a).
Changes: The Department updated
§ 602.36(d) to read:
‘‘(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 following the
publication of transcripts of the
Advisory Committee meeting or
conclusion of the review under
paragraph (b) of this section.’’

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Directed Question
§ 602.15—Administrative and Fiscal
Responsibilities
The Department sought feedback
about the extent to which the ‘‘conflict
of interest’’ requirements impact
accrediting agencies in relation to 401K
plans, health insurance, and other areas.
We understood that there may be some
agencies who utilize the same resources
as their related, associated, or affiliated
trade association in these certain areas,
and that there may be some

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

consideration to the amount of time and
resources it would take to unwind the
sharing of resources in such instances.
Comments: Some commenters stated
that for a programmatic accrediting
agency, they believed that requiring
independent human resources and
benefits administration, IT
infrastructure, legal and finance
support, marketing, and standalone
facilities within the one-year timeline
would be challenging. Some of these
agencies believed that these changes
would result in costs that agencies
would pass on to institutions through
higher accreditation fees to programs.
Commenters argued their belief that the
proposed regulation directly undercuts
the rule’s own goal of reducing
regulatory burden and cost under
§ 602.15(c). The two main suggestions
for provisions under § 602.14 and
§ 602.15 on separate and independent
requirements were: (1) rescind the
amendments to the regulations or (2)
provide more time to comply with the
requirements. For a full list of
recommendations, please see the
discussions under § 602.14 and
§ 602.15.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the recommendations. The
Department’s phase-in of the final rule
for applications for initial and renewed
recognition that were submitted during
the transition period of the final rule
will provide agencies approximately 20
months, through July 1, 2028, to make
the necessary changes to comply with
the regulations. If an agency is unable to
comply by that date due to existing
lease obligations, it may contact the
Department to provide specific details
regarding its circumstances. The
Department may consider an agency’s
demonstrated, substantive progress
toward achieving full compliance
within a reasonable timeframe when
determining whether to maintain its
recognition status. Such progress must
be supported by objective, verifiable
evidence of concrete actions taken and
measurable progress toward
compliance, rather than statements of
intent or unsupported assurances. The
Department may require the agency to
submit periodic reports and supporting
documentation to assess its progress and
determine whether the agency is on
track to achieve full compliance within
the applicable timeframe.
Changes: None.
Regulatory Impact Analysis—Data
Constraints
The Department recognizes that there
is limited data available to estimate the
proposed regulation’s potential impact
on accrediting agencies, institutions,

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68633

programs, and students. Due to the
scarcity of existing information, the
Department invited public feedback on
possible methods and data sources that
could further strengthen the analysis
presented in the RIA.
Comments: Several commenters urged
the Department to withdraw the
proposal because the commenters
believed that the Directed Question in
the NPRM conceded that the
Department lacks empirical data on the
effects of these changes.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with commenters’ assertion that its
solicitation of public feedback to
strengthen the RIA demonstrates a lack
of empirical data to support the
proposed changes. This assertion
misconstrues the purpose of the
Department’s request for feedback,
which is intended to ensure that its
analysis is informed by the best
available information and evidence.
Seeking public input is a means of
strengthening the analytical basis for
informed policymaking, not an
indication that the analysis lacks an
adequate evidentiary foundation. In
response to some commenters’ feedback,
the Department has supplemented the
RIA with additional information to
further support the proposed changes.
This includes additional estimates for
changes in title IV student aid
disbursements that result from credit
transfer policies and an increase in
innovative and flexible educational
models.
Changes: None.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters
requested phased implementation to
allow them time to develop systems to
implement these changes.
Discussion: Except as otherwise
noted, the regulations will not be
effective until July 1, 2027. We believe
that the eight months between
November 2026 and July 2027 is
sufficient time to update standards,
policies, and procedures to achieve
compliance by the established deadline.
Further, the Department has noted
implications for specific provisions of
the regulations under the
Implementation Date of These
Regulations section.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
requested that the Department publish
subregulatory guidance quickly after the
final rule is published. For example, one
commenter requested a prioritized list
of items the Department intends to
finalize as guidance, a data-access
roadmap that describes how programlevel outcomes, licensure data,

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68634

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

assessment scores, and unemployment
insurance (UI) wage records may be
securely obtained and used, model
templates for agency petitions,
confidentiality markings, and
remediation/transition plans to reduce
burden and increase consistency, and an
interagency/State liaison process for
expedited sharing of restricted outcomes
data and coordinated teach-out/closure
responses.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that institutions, accrediting
agencies, States, and other stakeholders
may benefit from additional information
regarding implementation of the final
rule. The Department has a longstanding practice of providing technical
assistance, guidance, and other
informational resources, as appropriate,
to facilitate compliance with regulatory
requirements. However, the Department
declines to commit to issuing specific
guidance documents, model templates,
roadmaps, timelines, or interagency
coordination procedures within a
prescribed timeframe.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
stated that before finalizing these
amendments, the Department should
state, for each regulatory change, the
specific problem it addresses, provide
evidence of the problem, and then state
the results it is expected to produce.
One commenter also stated that the final
rule should establish a transparent postimplementation review, using a pre-rule
baseline and reporting results at defined
intervals, including an initial review
within 24 months and a fuller review
within five years.
Discussion: The Department has
explained the reasons for the regulatory
changes in the NPRM and further
elaborates on these here. We also
decline to regulate the Secretary in a
way that would require the Secretary to
release reports not required under the
law.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
argued that the negotiated rulemaking
committee did not reflect a good-faith
effort to represent all significantly
affected interests. Some commenters
believed that the committee was overly
partisan. Other commenters believe that
the committee lacked faculty members
and other negotiators with specialized
expertise needed to fully understand
and address the complexities of the
proposal. A few commenters stated that
the nine-day negotiated rulemaking and
30-day comment periods were too short
to gather substantive feedback from
stakeholders.
Discussion: The Department firmly
disagrees with the assertion that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

negotiated rulemaking process lacked
good-faith efforts or the expertise
necessary to adequately consider the
issues. Consistent with the requirements
of Section 492 of the HEA, the
Department convened a negotiated
rulemaking committee comprising
representatives from a broad range of
stakeholder groups reflecting the diverse
sectors and interests within higher
education. The Department believes that
the committee benefited from the varied
perspectives and expertise of
representatives of institutions of higher
education, students, institutional and
programmatic accrediting agencies,
State officials, and other stakeholders
with substantial experience in
accreditation policies and practices and
related matters. The process was
conducted to facilitate meaningful
deliberation among stakeholders with
relevant experience and expertise, and
the Department rejects any
characterization that disregards those
efforts or the substance of the
committee’s work. In addition to
information provided during negotiated
rulemaking sessions, the Department
considered stakeholder input received
throughout the months-long rulemaking
process, including comments submitted
in response to the proposed regulations.
Prior to (public hearings), during
(negotiators), and after rulemaking
(public comment period), the
Department has heard from thousands
of stakeholders on the proposals. We
believe we have afforded the public a
substantial opportunity for meaningful
input.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opined
that accreditation of local law schools
should be left to the States in which the
schools reside, and their licensing
boards of higher education.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that this could be an acceptable
alternative. One goal of the final rule is
to encourage new, innovative
accrediting agencies to seek recognition
from the Department, which should
increase competition and quality of
agencies. However, the Department is
unable to independently foster new
competition, as it requires action from
new and nascent accrediting agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the final rule should ensure that
nothing in Part 602 leads accrediting
agencies to penalize institutions whose
assessment models assume super
intelligence (SI) availability and
measure human contribution directly.9

Discussion: Regulating the use of SI,
or any other forms of data analysis and
automation, in educational assessment
goes beyond the scope of this final rule.
Agencies are required to establish
standards based on § 602.16 and apply
them based on § 602.17. Nothing in this
rule explicitly or implicitly prohibits
use of SI or other tools available to the
agency in carrying out these
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require accrediting agencies to evaluate
whether institutions maintain and
consistently apply:
• Clear, publicly available academicappeal procedures;
• Timely student access to the
records and evidence relied upon before
an appeal is decided;
• Written, evidence-based reasons for
final decisions;
• Conflict-of-interest protections and
recusal procedures for decision-makers;
• An escalation or independentreview mechanism when the accuracy,
completeness, or reliability of the
underlying student record is disputed;
and
• Public reporting of aggregate appeal
outcomes and corrective actions, while
protecting student privacy.
Discussion: While accrediting
agencies have significant discretion to
establish requirements for the
institutions and programs that they
accredit, the Department believes that
the changes proposed by the commenter
are not authorized by the statute.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the final rule or
accompanying guidance expressly
identify Registered Apprenticeship as a
workforce model that programmatic
accrediting agencies should be prepared
to evaluate under the proposed rule.
Discussion: While the Department
strongly supports Registered
Apprenticeships and has taken steps to
remove barriers and otherwise facilitate
the integration of this and other ‘‘learn
and earn’’ models with the Federal
student aid programs and other
Department programs, we recognize the
considerable oversight and evaluation of
Registered Apprenticeships that is
already conducted by the Department of
Labor and State apprenticeship
agencies. Moreover, Registered
Apprenticeships are just one of many
models currently being used for
workforce development and education
programs, and the Department does not

9 Pursuant to Executive Order 14434, 91 FR 63129
(Oct. 2, 2026), this document uses the term ‘‘Super

Intelligence’’ or ‘‘SI’’ instead of ‘‘Artificial
Intelligence’’ or ‘‘AI.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
believe it is necessary at this time to
reference any particular model in these
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the final rule require
ongoing evaluation of unintended
consequences. The commenter
suggested the establishment of
mechanisms for monitoring whether the
reforms produce ideological sorting,
strategic behavior, conflicts of interest,
reduced educational diversity, or other
unintended effects are needed.
Discussion: The Department believes
the final rule is well-targeted and likely
to achieve their desired objectives. The
Department is constantly monitoring its
policies and regulations and the
changing environment in which they are
applied. The final rule is the direct
result of evaluating current regulations
that amend both long-standing
regulations and more recent changes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to ensure explicit reference
to ‘‘Tribal law’’ and ‘‘Tribal
governments’’ in regulations and to
clarify the final rule to recognize the
incorporation of Tribal languages and
culture within Tribal colleges or
universities.
Discussion: The major reforms in
these regulations—improving
educational quality, protecting students
and taxpayers, and ensuring recognized
accrediting agencies support innovation,
accountability, and legal compliance—
apply to all accrediting agencies and the
institutions and programs they accredit,
including Tribal colleges or universities.
The regulations already address issues
of institutional mission and legal
compliance, but the Department
reserves the ability to issue
subregulatory guidance as necessary to
address specific matters of legal
compliance that may arise.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter
stressed that the Department should
require recognized agencies to disclose
meaningful information concerning
governance, finances, decision making,
institutional reviews, appeals, peer
review practices, conflicts of interest,
accreditation outcomes, and measures of
the accrediting agency’s own
effectiveness.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the need for additional
agency transparency and has taken a
number of steps in this final rule to
increase disclosure and transparency
and address conflicts of interest.
Additionally, these regulations establish
a new framework for improved and
more thorough oversight of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

recognized accrediting agencies that
serve as the primary gatekeepers for the
Federal student aid programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
requires programmatic accrediting
agencies in licensed professions where
practitioners exercise direct professional
judgment affecting public welfare—such
as social work, nursing, and
counseling—to collect and publicly
report student outcome data, including
licensure examination pass rates by
program.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the value of student
outcome data, particularly licensure
pass rates, but notes that such data is
already available through the state
licensure process, and many accrediting
agencies have licensure pass rate data
and disclose that data for the programs
that they accredit.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stressed
that the Department should evaluate
downstream impacts on licensure
portability and public protection.
Discussion: The Department believes
we have adequate regulations regarding
licensure under § 602.16(a)(1),
§ 602.16(g)(3), § 602.17(a)(1), and
§ 602.20(i)(1).
Changes: None.
General Agreement With the
Regulations
Comments: Some commenters offered
general support for the proposed rule.
These commenters stated that the rule
will increase competition among
accrediting agencies, which will
eliminate violations of antitrust laws,
credential inflation, and increased costs
for taxpayers and students alike.
Commenters championed the
Department’s efforts to focus on student
achievement and outcomes, improve
credit transfer to increase educational
mobility, and reduce unnecessary
administrative burdens. Commenters’
testimonials included:
• ‘‘The Department’s August 20, 2026
proposed rule is a necessary and
potentially transformative correction to
an accreditation system that has too
often rewarded institutional conformity
instead of measurable educational
value.’’
• ‘‘Accrediting agencies have often
played a role in credential inflation.
Programmatic accrediting agencies may
add mandates that make it more
expensive to operate a particular
program, the costs of which are passed
on to students through higher tuition
prices.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68635

• ‘‘Competition among accrediting
agencies can preserve a common safety
floor while allowing different
educational methods to prove
themselves.’’
• ‘‘Accrediting agencies should focus
on whether schools are providing
students with a quality education and
helping them succeed. They should not
be requiring schools to follow certain
beliefs or practices that may be
discriminatory or unrelated to the
quality of education students receive. I
support the Department’s proposal to
make sure accreditation decisions are
fair, strengthen oversight, and focus
more on student outcomes.’’
• ‘‘Accreditation should provide
meaningful assurance of educational
quality without encouraging institutions
to become more alike simply because
uniformity is easier to measure. A
regulatory framework that combines
rigorous accountability with genuine
institutional differentiation will better
serve students, institutions, and the
public.’’
• ‘‘The Problem: The current system
focuses on bureaucratic processes rather
than actual student outcomes like
learning, graduation rates, employment,
and loan repayment. The Solution: The
proposed rule holds institutions
accountable by enforcing state and
Federal laws, setting minimum student
performance standards, and measuring
real-world outcomes. This reform is
critical to fixing a broken system and
restoring accountability to American
higher education.’’
• ‘‘. . . despite their immense power
over institutions of higher education,
accreditation agencies fail to ensure
academic quality, operate like a
monopoly, lack transparency, and stifle
new and innovative educational
models.’’
Discussion: The Department thanks
commenters for their support. We agree
that the final rule will reduce burden on
agencies and their accredited
institutions and programs by
eliminating requirements not required
by statute, focus on educational quality
with increased accountability on
agencies, and ensure that the standards
and policies of agencies do not violate
Federal or State law.
Changes: None.
General Opposition to the Regulations
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the proposed rule and urged
the Department to withdraw or
substantially revise the proposed rule.
Commenters were concerned that these
regulations will shift academic and
financial judgments from institutions
and accrediting agencies to the Federal

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68636

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

government and argue that educational
quality, affordability, and accountability
will suffer as a result. Commenters
argued that the final rule would allow
the Department to indirectly withhold
Federal student financial assistance,
either by requiring accrediting agencies
to end accreditation or by ending
recognition for the institution’s
accrediting agency, when institutions
are under investigation for a variety of
issues such as interpretations of civil
rights laws or political and ideological
disputes.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with these perspectives and notes that
the final rule does not replace
institutional or agency discretion or
judgment nor does it politicize the
recognition process for accrediting
agencies. Rather, in issuing this final
rule, the Department is strengthening
transparency of agencies and the
institutions and programs they accredit
and improving consistency and student
protections across institutions and
programs. The final rule preserves the
core role of accrediting agencies in
setting standards for and evaluating
academic quality. Nothing in the final
rule authorizes the Department to
impose Federal viewpoints on agency or
institutional decision-making. The final
rule properly sets certain baseline
expectations for recognition of agencies
by the Department as reliable authorities
on educational quality, such as
protections for students during
disruptions of educational services and
consistent treatment of transfer credits
when students change institutions or
advance to higher levels, which are
essential to safeguarding the integrity of
the Federal student aid programs and
ensuring accountability to taxpayers.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
expressed concerns for programs serving
students in prison education programs.
The commenters stressed the proposed
rules could lead to politically motivated
State action against a prison education
or post-incarceration reentry program
and could trigger a fast-tracked
accreditation review, giving State actors
a new lever to pressure programs they
find objectionable.
Discussion: The Department
maintains that all students, including
those who are incarcerated, deserve
increased accrediting agency oversight
and will benefit from reinforcement of
the existing legal, constitutional, civil
rights, and consumer protection
obligations already required of
recognized accrediting agencies and the
institutions and programs that they
accredit.
Changes: None

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Legal Authority
Comments: Some commenters did not
believe the Department has the statutory
authority to regulate in several areas of
this final rule, including the
amendments under § 602.13 that add
regulations on antitrust law; § 602.14
and § 602.15 that amend requirements
on conflicts of interest; § 602.17 that
amends the application of standards in
reaching accreditation decisions,
including student achievement
standards and agency requirements on
the application of civil rights law;
§ 602.23 that amends regulations on
operating procedures all agencies must
have; and § 602.24 that amends
requirements for credit transfers.
Commenters often cited several
statutory provisions to support their
claims. Commenters stated Section
496(a)(5) of the HEA prescribes the
specific standards for accreditation.
Some commenters believe that the
Department has added new standards
that do not currently exist in statute.
Commenters also cited Section 496(g) of
the HEA as Congressional intent on the
limitation of the Department’s authority
to establish additional standards:
‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to permit the Secretary to establish
criteria for accrediting agencies or
associations that are not required by this
section. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit or limit any
accrediting agency or association from
adopting additional standards not
provided for in this section. Nothing in
this section shall be construed to permit
the Secretary to establish any criteria
that specifies, defines, or prescribes the
standards that accrediting agencies or
associations shall use to assess any
institution’s success with respect to
student achievement’’. Commenters
cited Section 496(o) that states the
Secretary ‘‘shall not promulgate any
regulation with respect to the standards
of an accrediting agency or association
described in subsection (a)(5)’’.
Finally, commenters cited Section 103
of the Department of Education
Organization Act as evidence of
Congressional intent on the limits of the
Department’s authority: ‘‘No provision
of a program administered by the
Secretary or by any other officer of the
Department shall be construed to
authorize the Secretary or any such
officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, over any accrediting
agency or association, or over the
selection or content of library resources,

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

textbooks, or other instructional
materials by any educational institution
or school system, except to the extent
authorized by law’’.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with these commenters. The Secretary
has express authority to ‘‘by regulation
provide procedures for the recognition
of accrediting agencies or associations
and for the appeal of the Secretary’s
decisions,’’ 20 U.S.C. 1099b(o), and to
‘‘establish criteria’’ through notice-andcomment rulemaking to determine
whether an agency is a ‘‘reliable
authority as to the quality of education
or training,’’ 20 U.S.C. 1099b(a). Thus,
Congress expressly directed the
Secretary to establish criteria for
determining whether an agency is a
reliable authority of the quality of
education and training of the
institutions and programs that it
accredits. Congress narrowly limited the
Secretary’s authority in this area is
prohibiting ‘‘promulgat[ing] any
regulation with respect to the standards
of an accreditation agency or association
described in subsection (a)(5).’’ 20
U.S.C. 1099b(o).
The limitation in this section only
means that the Department cannot add
to the standards enumerated in
subsection (a)(5). However, the
Secretary is not prohibited from
establishing the criteria used by the
Department to determine whether an
agency’s standards, including those
described in subsection (a)(5), comply
with the statute and regulations.
The Department is not requiring any
agency to adopt any requirements as
standards. Instead, these regulations
inform how the Department will assess
whether the standards an agency has
adopted are adequate to show that the
agency is a reliable authority on
institutional quality.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
questioned the Department’s authority
to make many of the changes proposed
to § 602.17. These commenters believe
that the Department added new
requirements to § 602.17 in
contravention of express statutory
prohibitions. Specifically, the
commenters pointed to Section 496(g) of
the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1099b(g)), 20 U.S.C.
1099b(o), and Section 103 of the
Department of Education Organization
Act . While many of the commenters
were skeptical of the Department’s
authority to add any of the new
requirements in § 602.17, many focused
especially on the inclusion of student
achievement, academic freedom, and
cost-benefit analysis.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with these commenters. The Secretary

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
has express authority to ‘‘by regulation
provide procedures for the recognition
of accrediting agencies or associations
and for the appeal of the Secretary’s
decisions,’’
20 U.S.C. 1099b(o), and to ‘‘establish
criteria’’ through notice-and-comment
rulemaking to determine whether an
agency is a ‘‘reliable authority as to the
quality of education or training,’’ 20
U.S.C. 1099b(a). Thereby, Congress has
commanded the Secretary to establish
criteria by which the Secretary will
determine whether an agency is a
reliable authority of institutional
quality. Congress limited the Secretary’s
authority in this area by prohibiting the
Secretary from ‘‘promulgat[ing] any
regulation with respect to the standards
of an accreditation agency or association
described in subsection (a)(5).’’ 20
U.S.C. 1099b(o).
The Department believes the best
reading of this section is that the
Department cannot add to the standards
listed in subsection (a)(5). But, given the
express command to establish criteria
by which the Secretary will determine
whether an agency is a reliable authority
of institutional quality, the Secretary is
not prohibited from explaining the
criteria that the Secretary will use to
determine whether an agency’s
subsection (a)(5) standards are
effectively applied and enforced.
This is what the Department has done
in Section 602.17. Section 602.17 does
not add to the standards an agency must
consider when assessing an institution’s
faculty, for example. Rather, these are
the criteria the Department will use to
determine whether an agency has
effective subsection (a)(5) standards.
This interpretation is further
supported by Section 496(a)(4)(A) of the
HEA, which expressly requires
accrediting agencies to consistently
apply and enforce their standards, and
section 496(n), which requires the
Secretary to conduct a comprehensive
and independent evaluation of
accrediting agencies. These provisions
authorize the Department to evaluate
not only whether agencies have adopted
standards, but also how those standards
are applied and enforced. The
requirements in § 602.17 implement
these statutory responsibilities without
prescribing the substantive content of
accreditation standards. This distinction
rests on the substance of the
requirements, not merely their
placement in the regulations.
To the extent the commenters believe
that the Department is adding standards
to Section 602.16, they are mistaken.
While the Department’s initial
discussion draft prior to negotiated
rulemaking included proposed changes

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

to 602.16, the Department heard from
several negotiators that the changes
being sought were focused on the
application of standards rather than
changing the content of the standards
themselves. Instead, these amendments
inform how the Department will assess
whether the standards an agency has
adopted are adequate to show that the
agency is a reliable authority on
institutional quality. The negotiated
rulemaking committee extensively
discussed and ultimately reached
consensus on changes to Section 602.17
to address how the Department
determines whether agencies have
effective mechanisms for evaluating
compliance with its standards. The
changes that were agreed upon by the
negotiated rulemaking committee were
proposed by the Department in the
NPRM. These changes make only
clarifying and technical changes to the
requirements for standards in 602.16
and amend the evaluative criteria in
602.17 for the agency’s application of
standards in reaching accreditation
decisions, which are designed for the
Department to determine whether an
agency is a reliable authority of
educational quality for purposes of the
HEA and other Federal purposes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Other commenters stated
that the Department lacks authority to
promulgate Section 602.14. In
particular, the commenters argued that
the Department could not apply the
separate and independent requirement
to programmatic accrediting agencies
who do not serve as title IV gatekeepers.
One commenter stated that the HEA was
amended more than 30 years ago (Public
Law 103–208) to make clear that
‘‘separation was not required for
accrediting bodies with no title IV
purpose.’’ The commenter stated that
contemporaneous legislative history
reinforces this point, because a US
Representative, in introducing the
Higher Education Technical
Amendments of 1993, stated that: ‘‘. . .
membership organizations requested
clarification of the requirement for
accrediting bodies to be separate and
independent from their accrediting
associations. Statements made on the
House floor during consideration of the
Higher Education Amendments of 1992
clarified that this separation was not
required for accrediting bodies with no
title IV purpose. However, the
Department of Education informed us
that a technical amendment is necessary
to achieve congressional intent. Without
this clarification these organizations
will be required to undergo costly
restructuring to meet the separate and
independent requirements.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68637

Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters. We first note that
accrediting agencies will be required to
demonstrate a Federal link in order to
be recognized by the Department.
Programmatic agencies who do not
demonstrate such a link will not be
considered for recognition and therefore
need not comply with the separate and
independent requirements. In any case,
purely programmatic accrediting
agencies recognized under 602.14(a)(3)
are not required to comply with the
separate and independent requirements
in 602.14(b).
All accrediting agencies, including
programmatic ones, are required to
comply with 602.15, including by
demonstrating clear and effective
controls to avoid or resolve conflicts of
interest. The commenters do not dispute
the Department’s authority to regulate
under this section. To the extent
commenters argue that the Department
is effectively imposing the separate and
independent requirements through
602.15(e), they are mistaken. Section
602.14(b) requires structural separation,
meaning an agency must be
independent of any related, associated,
or affiliated trade association in its
governance, budget, and personnel. In
contrast, Section 602.15(e) does not
require that separation. It requires only
that the agencies identify and disclose
relationships with trade associations
and maintain clear and effective
controls to prevent those relationships
from improperly influencing
accreditation decisions. An agency may
maintain such relationships and comply
with 602.15(e), so long as appropriate
safeguards are in place.
The Department discussed at length
its concerns with the influence that
related, associated, or affiliated trade
associations exert over accrediting
agencies, leading the agencies to adopt
standards and practices that do not
always advance students’ interests. The
commenters fail to explain why the
Department is incorrect to call this
influence a conflict of interest or why
the Department should not take steps to
rein it in. The longstanding nature of the
relationship between an accrediting
agency and a related, associated, or
affiliated trade association does not
negate the existence of a conflict of
interest, nor does it justify permitting
such a conflict to persist.
Finally, the Department takes note of
the legislative history cited in a
comment but also notes that legislative
history cannot change the plain
language of the statute. See State Farm
Fire and Cas. Co. v. U.S ex rel. Rigsby,
580 U.S. 26, 36–37 (2016).

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68638

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Here, the relevant statutes grant the
Secretary authority to promulgate
regulations and do not limit the
Secretary’s authority to specify what is
considered a conflict of interest.
Changes: None.
§ 600.11 Special Rules Regarding
Institutional Accreditation or
Preaccreditation
Comments: Some commenters
strongly supported the amendments to
§ 600.11. They believed that
competition among accrediting agencies
will strengthen accountability, provide
quality assurance, encourage
innovation, and make accrediting
agencies more responsive. Other
commenters stated that the proposed
regulations would lower barriers to
entry while retaining statutory quality
controls for agency recognition.
Commenters stated that agencies should
have incentives to demonstrate their
value through effective quality
assurance, reasonable processes,
responsive service, appropriate
standards, and efficient oversight. These
commenters believed that allowing
institutions to more easily change
accrediting agencies creates those
incentives and reduces the risk that
accreditation relationships become
permanent regardless of an agency’s
performance.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support. The final
rule reduces regulatory burden on
agencies in several areas but enhance
accountability and direct focus on
agencies’ application of their standards
and policies during the Department’s
recognition process.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters stated
that loosening requirements for
institutions to change accrediting
agencies will result in institutions
seeking out agencies with the lowest
standards. Common themes in the
comments opposing the amendments
were (1) the regulations would weaken
accreditation and result in a ‘‘race to the
bottom’’ in terms of academic quality,
(2) relaxed requirements for changing
agencies and fewer barriers to Federal
recognition would result in institutions
shopping for the agencies with the
weakest standards, (3) institutions
would be able to easily evade
accountability, (4) the rule ignores the
negative consequences of policies that
create competition for competition’s
sake, and (5) this change, combined
with changes under § 602.11 and
§ 602.12, will drastically lower the
requirements of accrediting agencies to
be more easily recognized by the
Department, with the probability of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

predatory institutions gaining
accreditation increasing.
Discussion: The Department has not
reduced statutorily required oversight of
accrediting agencies nor encouraged
them to have lower standards. The
commenters will note that all the
statutorily required standards under
Section 496(a)(5) remain unchanged.
The Department has also added
additional safeguards in the form of
application of the required standards
under § 602.17 to ensure agencies are
accounting in their policies for things
like post-completion and graduation
outcomes, the educational and
economic returns of programs, academic
freedom protections, cost-benefit
analysis of institutional activities, and
optimization of students’ time to
credential to reduce the amount of
borrowing for students.
The regulations will not result in a
race to the bottom. In fact, the
Department has raised the bar for
outcomes of students receiving title IV,
HEA assistance at eligible institutions.
An agency will still apply to the
Department for recognition and be
evaluated by both Department staff and
NACIQI, receive approval from the
senior Department official, and continue
to be re-recognized by the Secretary
through Departmental periodic review
of the agency’s compliance with the
rigorous standards contained in the
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
provided specific recommendations that
they believe would strengthen
protections in the rule. One commenter
stated that the Department should
require an institution to submit its
complete accreditation and compliance
record, including all adverse and
interim actions, unresolved findings,
complaints, financial risk indicators,
program review materials, teach-out
obligations, corrective action plans, and
relevant State or Federal actions. The
receiving agency should be required to
review that record and provide the
Secretary with a written certification
that it has considered the institution’s
prior history and determined that the
change is not intended to evade
oversight or obtain a less rigorous
review. The commenter made additional
requests regarding public disclosure of
the change in agency and clear timelines
to be published about the process for
changing agencies. The Department
should also require an institution to
publicly disclose its reason for changing
accrediting agency and any pending or
recent adverse actions.
A different commenter stated that
agencies should submit the most recent

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

accreditation determination letter;
visiting-team reports and other agency
feedback from the prior three years;
information on pending consumer
complaints and investigations by State
and local licensing and law-enforcement
agencies; and a status confirmation from
the institution’s current accrediting
agency stating whether it has opened
inquiries, engaged in substantive
dialogue about compliance, or taken any
action.
Another commenter stated that the
NPRM assurance that institutions
‘‘subject to an adverse action cannot
switch’’ is not reflected in the regulatory
text itself, which requires a Secretarial
finding of evasive intent. The
commenter recommended restoring the
current 24-month look-back, and
providing that an institution under
probation, show cause, suspension, or
adverse action may not designate a new
accrediting agency as its gatekeeper for
the Federal student aid programs until
the action is resolved or the receiving
agency has independently reviewed and
adopted findings on each deficiency
identified by the prior agency.
Discussion: The Department declines
the commenters’ suggestions because
they are not based in statute. We believe
the new regulations under
§ 600.11(a)(1)(ii) are sufficiently
rigorous to ensure that the Department
is able to ascertain that an institution is
trying to evade, avoid, misrepresent, or
undermine the integrity of any title IV,
HEA programs, which includes if an
institution was subject to an adverse
action by an agency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department consider language
that would protect institutions from
penalizing actions by a current
accrediting agency when exercising
their right to choose another agency
under § 600.11.
Discussion: If an institution believes
that its current accrediting agency has
taken adverse or punitive action against
it in response to its efforts to change
accrediting agencies, the institution may
document those concerns in the
materials it submits to the Department
pursuant to § 600.11(a)(1). The
institution may also submit a complaint
directly to Department staff for review.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Secretary should not be the sole
arbiter of whether an institution’s cause
for switching accrediting agencies is
‘‘reasonable.’’ The commenter stated
that the determination would rest
entirely with one political appointee,
with no independent review, no defined
evidentiary standard, and no public

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
rationale requirement. The commenter
recommended that the Department vest
this determination in NACIQI or a
comparable independent body.
Discussion: The discretion to approve
or deny a change in accrediting agencies
even prior to this proposal rested with
the Secretary. The Department
maintains the proper protocols, ethical
practices, and staff to ensure
consistency, transparency, and fairness
in all decision-making.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the final rule and accompanying
guidance should specify how eligibility
for title IV, HEA program funds is
affected when an institution holds more
than one institutional accreditation,
how the institution designates a primary
agency and changes that designation,
and what disclosure to students is
required.
Discussion: The current process for
reviewing multiple accreditations
addresses these issues, and the
Department does not expect the process
related to those issues to change. Under
the regulations, Department evaluates
whether an institution has demonstrated
reasonable cause for adding an
additional accrediting agency based on
information provided by the institution
and other information available to the
Department. As a reminder, under 34
CFR 668.43(a)(6), institutions are
responsible for providing information
that is readily available to enrolled and
prospective students about the names of
associations, agencies, or governmental
bodies that accredit, approve, or license
the institution and its programs and the
procedures by which documents
describing that activity may be reviewed
under 34 CFR 668.43(b). If a new agency
begins to accredit an institution, the
Department expects the institution to
disclose the appropriate information to
enrolled and prospective students as
soon as possible.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that institutions should be able to
protect their students by avoiding a gap
in title IV aid between the previous
accreditation and the new accreditation,
especially in the health care and
veterinary professions. The commenter
also stated that although the rule states
that new agencies should avoid
unnecessary costs to institutions in the
accreditation process, institutions that
change agencies may have to account for
increased accreditation costs, and those
costs may be passed along to taxpayers
or students.
Discussion: While there may be an
outlier, the Department does not
envision a circumstance in which an

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

institution voluntarily chooses to switch
accrediting agencies and causes a gap in
title IV funds access. The institution
would retain title IV eligibility under its
original agency until the change in
accrediting agency was complete.
With respect to concerns about
increased costs associated with
changing accrediting agencies, the
Department notes that these regulations
do not require an institution or program
to change accrediting agencies. Rather,
the regulations are intended to facilitate
such changes when an institution or
program determines that doing so is
appropriate. Accordingly, an institution
or program anticipating increased costs
that could necessitate ongoing increases
in students’ cost of attendance should
carefully evaluate whether changing
accrediting agencies is in the best
interests of its students. The Department
recognizes, however, that the potential
benefits of changing accrediting
agencies may outweigh the associated
costs, depending on the institution’s or
program’s circumstances and the
interests of its students.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
supported the amendments to the
provision on an institution having
accreditation from multiple entities
under § 600.11(b). One commenter
stated that the regulations correctly read
HEA Sections 496(h) and (i) as requiring
disclosure and reasonable cause, not as
granting the Department a general veto
over an institution’s choice of quality
assurance partner. The enumerated
grounds for finding cause unreasonable
are the right guardrails and are narrowly
drawn. Another commenter stated that
allowing an institution to have
accreditation from multiple agencies
will encourage more agencies to apply
to the Department for recognition, thus
leading to increased oversight of
agencies and better quality assurance of
institutions and programs.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
opposed the changes under § 600.11(b)
because they believe institutions will be
incentivized to seek dual accreditation,
likely from a new accrediting agency
with less rigorous standards, as a safety
net if they fail to meet the standards of
one of the more established accrediting
agencies.
Discussion: We believe a guardrail
exists in the regulation for this situation.
One of the provisions under § 600.11(b)
is that an agency cannot carry
accreditation from multiple agencies to
‘‘avoid or delay enforcement or
oversight by the Department or an

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68639

accrediting agency.’’ Accordingly, the
Department has adequately addressed
the commenters’ concerns.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was
concerned that the wording of
§ 600.11(b)(2) could be interpreted in a
way that would prevent the Secretary
from acting against poorly performing
institutions. The commenter
recommended that, since revoking
accreditation is often a yearslong
process, the Department revise
§ 600.11(b)(2) to read ‘‘The Secretary
will not solely determine the cause of
having multiple accrediting agencies to
be unreasonable due to a probation or
equivalent, show cause order, or
suspension order.’’
Discussion: If the Secretary
determines that an accrediting agency is
not compliant with statue or
regulations, there are many mechanisms
to review, sanction, or revoke
recognition of the agency. This
provision alone does not prohibit the
Secretary from taking action in response
to violations of statute or regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department identify, as
examples of ‘‘reasonable cause,’’ an
institution’s decision to add an agency
whose scope covers workforce,
certificate, apprenticeship-aligned, or
eligible workforce programs.
Discussion: We decline to create a list
of reasons why an institution can have
accreditation by multiple agencies. If
the Department develops a list, we must
have a rationale for why one reason is
included and another is not. We have
provided in the regulation that as long
as none of the criteria are violated under
§ 600.11(b)(1)(ii), then the institution
can have accreditation from multiple
agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that future accreditationreform initiatives expressly support
technology and shared infrastructure
designed to reduce the administrative
burden associated with seeking,
maintaining, and changing
accreditation.
Discussion: The Department supports
the use of technology and shared
infrastructure (so long as it does not
violate § 602.13) to reduce the burden of
an institution seeking, maintaining, and
changing agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Secretary should consider when
a change of agency follows an
unresolved compliance concern raised
by the current agency, regardless of
whether the institution’s stated reason is

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68640

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

compliance with State law, and require
the institution to disclose any
outstanding findings.
Discussion: We believe the
commenter’s suggestion is accounted for
under § 600.11(a)(1)(ii).
Changes: None.
§ 602.2 How do I know which agencies
the Secretary recognizes?
Comments: One commenter agreed
with the changes under § 602.2 stating
that the amendments increase
transparency and more timely access to
information regarding accreditation
actions.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
include the history of accreditation
actions rather than only the current
status and flag any institution operating
under a continuation of eligibility
granted under § 602.26, so a student can
see that a college is drawing Federal aid
despite an adverse accreditation action.
Discussion: We decline the
commenter’s recommendation. We
believe this would be redundant to
requirements under 602.26(f) that
require an agency to maintain on its
website a clear record of all actions
taken for each institution or program it
accredits or preaccredits for a period of
at least five years.
Changes: None.
§ 602.3
part?

What definitions apply to this

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Accrediting Agency or Agency
Comments: A few commenters
supported the amended definition. One
commenter stated that the revisions are
an important shift from process-based
compliance toward substantive quality
assurance. The commenter stated that
peer review should remain available,
but the Federal government should not
dictate unnecessary details for those
processes. The commenter believed that
reducing Federal micromanagement can
allow accrediting agencies to devote
more attention to student achievement,
institutional performance, educational
quality, and meaningful improvement
while simultaneously reducing
unnecessary administrative costs for
institutions. Another commenter who
supported the rule stated that
accrediting agencies may wish to
include professionals and experts on
site visit teams who do not directly fit
within the strictest meanings implied by
‘‘peer’’ or ‘‘peer reviewers.’’
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the Department’s definition of
accrediting agency or agency.
Commenters opposed the removal of the
requirement that an agency conduct
activities through peer review.
Commenters urged the Department to
maintain the requirement for peer
review for the following reasons:
• Peer review is central to credibility
independence and essential to the
evaluation process, and peers are the
most competent individuals capable of
assessing quality of instruction.
• Experts such as engineers, doctors,
writers, physicists, and veterinarians
know their subjects but have no
understanding of education, teaching, or
students.
• The peer review process avoids the
injection of political ideologies, political
appointees, and overreach of outside
Federal agencies into the accreditation
process.
• With no guardrails, agencies may
contract individual reviewers with little
to no expertise in the areas they are
reviewing.
• Current regulations already require
agencies to include practitioners and
employers as a part of their evaluation
teams.
• The Department itself encourages
peer review in the preamble explanation
to changes to site visits under
§ 602.24(b).
Discussion: The regulatory
requirement that an agency conduct
activities through peer review is not
prescribed in statute under the HEA.
Where current regulations prescribe
requirements that extend beyond
recognition procedures and instead
direct the content or administration of
accrediting standards without a clear
statutory basis, the Department removes
or simplifies those requirements to
better align the regulations with
Congressional direction.
The regulations allow for an
accrediting agency to continue utilizing
the peer review model. There is no
prohibition on peer review if that is the
best option for the agency; however, the
regulations do acknowledge that peer
review is not the only appropriate
model for the review of an institution or
program. For example, an agency may
determine that a practicing veterinarian
or group of practicing veterinarians may
be better suited for the review of a
program than a professor(s) of veterinary
sciences.
Under § 602.15(a)(2), any agency must
have competent and knowledgeable
individuals, qualified by education or
experience as appropriate for their roles.
This provision continues to include the

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agency’s decision-making body and site
reviewers. With this final rule the
Department declines to apply a ‘‘one
size fits all’’ approach to how an agency
reviews its accredited institutions and
programs; however, we still maintain
high standards under § 602.16 and
application of those standards under
§ 602.17 for the reviews.
Note that the preamble language for
§ 602.24 states ‘‘peer’’ or ‘‘independent’’
review: ‘‘For example, having a peer or
independent reviewer alongside
accrediting agency staff would help the
evaluation reflect professional expertise
and perspectives that extend beyond
accrediting agency staff alone. Peer
reviewers bring field specific knowledge
that allows them to assess academic
standards, administrative capacity, and
institutional practices with appropriate
depth. Independent reviewers, likewise,
help the accreditation process not be
unduly influenced by an agency’s
internal perspectives or by longstanding
relationships with institutions.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked,
what is the Department’s expectation for
who conducts a review of a professional
program?
Discussion: The Department will not
mandate who conducts the review of
any program, including professional
programs. By removing the requirement
for peer review, agencies have flexibility
to innovate and create a unique review
process for institutions and programs.
Note that while the final rule provides
for flexibility and innovation, the
language under § 602.15(a)(2) still
requires that an agency has competent
and knowledgeable individuals,
qualified by education or experience in
their own right, as appropriate for their
roles.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to clarify that regardless of
whether reviewers are peers, agency
staff, or other qualified experts, the
review must apply rigorous standards
through a competent, independent, and
well-trained team.
Discussion: The commenter’s
statement is correct. Under
§ 602.15(a)(2), any agency must have
competent and knowledgeable
individuals, qualified by education or
experience in their own right, as
appropriate for their roles.
Changes: None.
Institution
Comments: A few commenters
recommended that the Department use
the term ‘‘postsecondary institution’’
rather than simply ‘‘institution’’ because
it would preserve the Department’s

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
objective of avoiding the narrower
statutory term ‘‘institution of higher
education’’ while more clearly
identifying the category of institutions
governed by the accreditation
regulations. Another commenter was
concerned that replacing language
traditionally tied to educational entities
as ‘‘Institutions of Higher Education’’
with the broader term ‘‘institution’’ may
unintentionally expand eligibility too
far beyond organizations whose primary
mission is education and learning.
Discussion: The Department sought to
simplify the term in an effort to not
repeat the phrase throughout 34 CFR
part 602. We believe the definition of
‘‘institution’’ is clear and simple. We
specifically state that the term means an
educational institution that meets the
requirements of paragraph (1) of the
definition of eligible institution found
in 34 CFR 600.2; therefore, there is no
possibility that the eligibility could
expand beyond (1) an institution of
higher education, as defined in § 600.4,
(2) a proprietary institution of higher
education, as defined in § 600.5; or (3)
a postsecondary vocational institution,
as defined in § 600.6.
Changes: None.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Related, Associated, or Affiliated Trade
Association
Comments: One commenter stated
that the definition is overly expansive
and will capture trade associations that
do not have a direct relationship with
agencies and negatively impact the
ability of those organizations to work
effectively with accrediting agencies,
especially if accrediting agencies are
member organizations of such trade
associations.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenter because the
definition does require a direct
relationship. One of the components of
this definition is that the organization
‘‘. . . is related to a particular
accrediting agency in that the agency
accredits institutions or programs that
prepare students to enter the workforce
of the same or substantially the same
line of commerce, business, industry, or
profession that organization promotes.’’
Changes: None.
§ 602.10 Link to Federal Programs
Comments: One commenter
supported the amendments to § 602.10.
The commenter stated that Congress has
assigned recognized accrediting
agencies an important responsibility to
serve as reliable authorities regarding
educational quality. That responsibility
should remain at the center of the
recognition framework. Where Congress
has expressly required agencies to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

perform Federal functions, those
requirements must be honored. But
Federal recognition should not
unnecessarily expand the agency’s role
beyond those statutory responsibilities
or encourage agencies to regulate
matters disconnected from educational
quality.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
stated that the changes to 602.10 will
result in programmatic accrediting
agencies no longer seeking recognition
from the Department. The commenters
believe that agencies that accredit
‘‘professional programs’’ should be
regulated by the Secretary to ensure
quality. The commenter recommended
that the Federal link should include a
designated ‘‘professional program,’’ and
those agencies should be required to
seek Department recognition. Another
commenter stated that agencies that
oversee law, medical, dental, veterinary,
pharmacy, and nursing schools should
be required to be recognized by the
Department due to their role in the U.S.
social system.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the recommendation. Section
496(a) requires a link to Federal
programs in order for the Secretary to
grant recognition. Institutional
accrediting agencies primarily act as
title IV gatekeepers for an institution to
be eligible to participate in the title IV
student financial aid programs. State
licensure of professions does not
establish a Federal link and law,
medical, dental, veterinary, pharmacy,
or nursing schools fall within an
institutional accrediting agency’s grant
of accreditation to the institution. For
programmatic accrediting agencies, the
Federal link is usually through a nonHEA Federal program, and the
Department will continue to recognize
or review for recognition any agency
with a non-HEA Federal link actively
utilized by its accredited programs as
well.
The Department will not recognize
any agency that does not have a direct
Federal link with either the Department
or another Federal agency. As noted
earlier, the Federal link is a statutory
requirement for the Department’s
recognition and it is not intended to be
a signal to State governments or
licensure agencies to rely on those
agencies for licensure or other State
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opposed
permitting an agency to satisfy the
Federal link requirement on the basis of
institutions that have designated

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68641

another agency. The provision exists to
enable stand-by accreditation. The
commenter recommended that the
Federal link be satisfied only by
institutions that designate the agency.
Discussion: As stated in the final rule
in 2019 when added, this provision is
designed to decrease barriers to entry
and enable new agencies to more easily
enter the marketplace. Until a new
agency is recognized, it is highly
unlikely that an accredited institution
would relinquish its current
accreditation that enables it to meet title
IV institutional eligibility requirements
to attain accreditation from that new
agency, even though the new agency
may be better suited to the institution’s
mission. Therefore, we decline the
commenter’s suggestion to remove the
provision.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the regulations do not address what
happens to an agency that loses
recognition if after two years there are
no institutions or programs that rely on
the agency’s accreditation to establish or
continue eligibility to participate in
Federal programs. The commenter
stated that the Department should add
provision for a notice period, teach-out,
and title IV consequences.
Discussion: If an agency has no
institutions that participate in the title
IV programs, then there would be no
reason for a teach-out or notice period
because no entity associated with the
agency would be disbursing title IV aid
to students. In the case of non-HEA
Federal programs, we cannot account
for all nuances of each program but
would again state that there would be
limited impact to students if no Federal
link is established. The two-year
window is to ensure only accrediting
agencies that have institutions and
programs that utilize Federal programs
are seeking recognition to avoid wasting
Department and taxpayer resources.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to confirm that an agency’s
Federal link under § 602.10 may be
established through Workforce Pell
participation alone, without requiring a
longer-format credential.
Discussion: The Department confirms
that an eligible institution is permitted
to offer only eligible workforce
programs qualifying for Pell Grants
(colloquially referred to as ‘‘Workforce
Pell’’). And, to that extent as such an
institution participating in the Pell
Grant program would be eligible for at
least one title IV, HEA program,
accreditation of such an institution
would satisfy the Department’s
requirements for a Federal link even if

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68642

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

the institution did not offer eligible
programs other than eligible workforce
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to state in implementing
guidance that where a Federal agency
conditions employment on
programmatic accreditation, the
qualifying condition should be
accreditation by an agency recognized
by the Secretary, rather than
accreditation by a single named
organization.
Discussion: The Department declines
the commenter’s request. Section 496
(m) of the HEA states that ‘‘the Secretary
may only recognize accrediting agencies
or associations which accredit
institutions of higher education for the
purpose of enabling such institutions to
establish eligibility to participate in the
programs under this Act or which
accredit institutions of higher education
or higher education programs for the
purpose of enabling them to establish
eligibility to participate in other
programs administered by the
Department of Education or other
Federal agencies.’’
The Department does not have
authority over another Federal agency’s
policies. A separate Federal agency may
condition employment on a specific
programmatic accrediting agency that is
not recognized by the Department, but
the statute is clear that the Federal link
that agencies need to establish for
Department recognition is related to a
program administered by a Federal
agency, not conditions of employment
by a Federal agency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to state in the preamble to
the final rule that the test in § 602.10(a)
governs reliance under § 602.10(c): an
institution that is accredited by two
accrediting agencies and participates in
the title IV, HEA programs could
designate either agency as its primary
agency for title IV purposes and could
therefore be used by either agency to
demonstrate its Federal link. The
commenter also suggests that the
Department conforms the text by adding
to § 602.10(c) a sentence to that effect so
that the two paragraphs apply one test.
Discussion: We confirm that if an
institution is dually accredited, even if
the institution designates another
institutional accrediting agency as its
Federal link, that would satisfy the
requirements for initial recognition
under § 602.10(c). Additional
conforming regulatory text is not
necessary.
Changes: None.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Comments: One commenter stated
that proposed § 602.10(c) would
establish a two-year post-recognition
condition under which a newly
recognized agency loses recognition if
no institution relies on its accreditation
within that period. The commenter
stated that the final rule should explain
how the Department expects the
provision to operate in professional
sectors where institutional switching
may occur slowly for reasons unrelated
to accrediting agency quality.
Discussion: All accrediting agencies
must demonstrate a Federal link for
Federal recognition. If an agency that
accredits an institution loses the
Department’s recognition after two years
under § 602.10(c), then the institution it
accredits never participated in an HEA
or non-HEA Federal program; therefore,
there would be no Federal consequence
to the institution due to the loss of the
agency’s recognition.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department clarify the
requirements for new agency
recognition by (1) stating objective
recognition criteria with defined review
timelines; (2) providing a provisional or
developmental recognition status
through which a new agency can
demonstrate performance on a defined
cohort before full recognition; and (3)
ensuring that experience requirements
can be satisfied by demonstrated
competence of an agency’s standards,
processes, and personnel, so that
specialized quality-assurance bodies are
not excluded by criteria only
incumbents can meet.
Discussion: While we decline to
regulate the Secretary in a way that
would place arbitrary deadlines on the
Department, we believe that several of
the commenters’ suggestions are already
accounted for in the final rule at
§ 602.12 Accrediting Experience,
§ 602.16 Accreditation and
preaccreditation standards, § 602.17
Application of standards in reaching
accreditation decisions, § 602.30 Agency
applications and reports to be submitted
to the Department, and § 602.31
Procedures for submitting applications
for recognition and renewal of
recognition.
Changes: None.
§ 602.11 Extent of Accrediting
Activities
Comments: Several commenters
offered general support for the
elimination of references to geographic
scope under § 602.11. The commenters
believe that differentiating between
regional and national accrediting
agencies implies that an institution

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

accredited by a regional accrediting
agency may be superior or represent a
different level of quality.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support. These final rules make
clear that the Department recognizes
institutional or programmatic
accrediting agencies only. We hold all
agencies to the same rigorous standards.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
questioned the need for further
regulation on regional and national
accreditation. The commenter stated
that this amendment is not necessary as
the Department published a final rule
on November 1, 2019, noting that ‘‘the
terms ‘‘regionally accredited’’ and
‘‘nationally accredited’’ will no longer
be used or recognized by the
Department. The commenter stated that
the Department taking additional action
after six years is unnecessary as
recognized institutional accrediting
agencies have been considered national
agencies following this rule.
Discussion: We proposed to fully
eradicate the terminology because
regulations under § 602.11(b) still refer
to a region. The Department seeks to
continue to break down the notion that
there is a difference between
institutional accrediting agencies. We
believe these amendments will
encourage States and other Federal
agencies to continue to remove policies
that favor institutions—and therefore
their students—accredited by former
‘‘regional’’ agencies over institutions
accredited by ‘‘national’’ agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
disagreed with the Department’s
removal of geographic restrictions from
recognized agencies. One commenter
stated that accrediting agencies will be
making decisions on programs with
which they have little experience or
knowledge. Another commenter stated
that regional and national accrediting
agencies held institutions to different
standards and produced different
outcomes. The commenter pointed to
the Department’s regulatory impact
analysis, Figures 3.1 to 3.3, plots of
graduation rates, completer earnings,
and loan delinquency by accrediting
agency. The commenter argued that the
solution would be to organize agencies
by tiers of demonstrated rigor defined at
the outset, which the prior regional
versus national approach approximated.
Discussion: Since 2019, the
Department has viewed institutional
accrediting agencies with no distinction
for geographic regions, unless noted
within their scope of recognition. We
have been careful not to make any
distinction as all agencies are required

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

to meet the same standardized
requirements in the regulations. This is
a floor not a ceiling; agencies have the
flexibility and autonomy to create
additional standards so long as they do
not conflict with Federal or State law.
The Department will discontinue the
practice of stratification of agencies
based on incomplete data or
assumptions and instead hold all
agencies to the same rigorous thresholds
and standards.
Lastly, regarding the commenter’s
statement that an agency may not have
the necessary experience to accredit
institutions outside of a specific region,
the commenter will note that the very
next section of the regulations, § 602.12,
contains extensive requirements
regarding the required experience of an
agency for recognition. For example,
§ 602.12(b) states that ‘‘An agency
seeking initial recognition must undergo
the Secretary’s recognition process,
defined in § 602.31, and an evaluation
of the agency’s compliance with the
Secretary’s recognition criteria, defined
in 34 CFR part 602, for the purpose of
determining if the agency is a reliable
authority as to the quality of education
or training provided by the institutions
or programs it accredits before its
application for recognition may be
considered by the Advisory
Committee.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should clarify what
constitutes an adequate description of
the ‘‘extent’’ of accrediting activities
and, more importantly, what evidence
an agency must provide to demonstrate
that it has the capacity, policies, and
procedures necessary to operate within
that extent. For example, if an agency
expands from accrediting institutions in
a limited number of States to truly
operating nationally, should the
Department evaluate staffing capacity,
reviewer availability, institutional
volume, travel and monitoring capacity,
financial resources, governance
infrastructure, or other operational
factors?
Discussion: The factors noted by the
commenter are evaluated during a
renewal of recognition review.
Changes: None.
§ 602.12 Accrediting Experience
Comments: Several commenters
supported removing the requirement
under current § 602.12(a)(2) that an
agency conduct accrediting activities,
including deciding whether to grant or
deny accreditation or preaccreditation,
for at least two years prior to seeking
recognition (two-year rule). Commenters
stated that the two-year rule provided

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

no practical path to an agency’s
recognition due to expense and time it
would take to obtain agency recognition
from the Department. One commenter
stated the two-year rule represented a
categorical barrier rather than a quality
check.
Another commenter stated that
opening the system to qualified new
agencies will permit accreditation to
evolve alongside higher education and
the American workforce. New
educational delivery models, rapidly
changing technologies, artificial
intelligence, shorter-term credentials,
competency-based education, and
changing employer needs present
challenges that the accreditation system
must be capable of addressing. Emerging
agencies may develop different methods
of evaluating outcomes, using data and
technology, measuring competencies,
and assessing whether programs are
preparing students for employment and
further education. Competition does not
guarantee innovation, but eliminating
unnecessary barriers gives innovation
an opportunity to occur.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed removing the two-year rule
under current § 602.12(a)(2). They stated
that accreditation exists to protect
students and taxpayers by ensuring that
a reliable, experienced authority is
vouching for institutional and program
quality, and a faster path to recognition
should not come at the expense of that
assurance. Several commenters stated
that such a change would allow
organizations with no record of
responsible conduct to be created at
will, which removes the value of
accreditation entirely. Other
commenters believed that the
amendments of § 602.12 enable the
creation of accrediting agencies with
arbitrary standards and will increase
accreditation of predatory institutions
that saddle students with debt.
One commenter stated that the
Department did not provide sufficient
data to support the rescission of the
two-year rule, and instead the
Department merely speculates that its
lower bar will entice new agencies to
seek recognition and further speculates
that developing the accrediting agency
market will lead to competition and
better educational outcomes. The
commenter contended that the changes
would fall short of enabling the
Department to meet its statutory
obligation to conduct a ‘‘comprehensive
review and evaluation’’ prior to
recognition, as required by 20 U.S.C.
1099b(n). In addition, the commenter

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68643

stated that the proposal is contrary to
law as the Secretary can ‘‘only
recognize’’ accrediting agencies which
‘‘accredit’’ (present tense) institutions or
programs for the purpose of enabling
participation in Federal funding, per 20
U.S.C. 1099b(m).
Discussion: As stated in the NPRM, a
two-year requirement is not statutory
and represents undue and unnecessary
burden for accrediting agencies seeking
recognition. Note that the new
provisions create guardrails and high
standards for agencies by requiring that
the agency be legally established to
operate in the relevant jurisdiction and
that the agency has standards and
operating procedures consistent with
applicable regulations. Additionally, all
agencies are reviewed for compliance
with the Secretary’s Criteria for
Recognition and are subject to the
recognition process, which ensures a
comprehensive evaluation.
The Department disagrees with the
commenter’s argument that the
Secretary can ‘‘only recognize’’
accreditors which ‘‘accredit’’ (present
tense) institutions or programs. Section
496(m) describes the purpose of
recognition, not a requirement that an
agency already have accredited
institutions or programs. This
interpretation is consistent with Section
496(a)(2)(A), which defines qualifying
agencies by their principal purpose of
accreditation. The Secretary must still
conduct a comprehensive review and
determine that an applicant satisfies all
applicable statutory requirements,
including demonstrated ability and
experience, but the statute does not
require two years of prior operations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the rescission of the two-year rule
creates a situation in which an
unrecognized agency will conduct a full
evaluation of an institution that already
holds recognized accreditation, and the
quality of that single decision will carry
the petition. The commenter asks the
Department to confirm that an
institution in this position satisfies
§ 600.11(b) if it makes the submission
and designation within a reasonable
period after the agency’s recognition
and that its eligibility is not interrupted
in the interval.
Discussion: The Department will
address specific operational and
implementation questions in
subregulatory guidance. The
Department agrees that an institution
should not experience an interruption
in title IV eligibility solely because it
obtains accreditation from an agency
that subsequently receives recognition.
An institution that maintains

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68644

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

accreditation from an already
recognized agency retains its eligibility
on that basis, provided it continues to
satisfy all applicable requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that before recognizing a new
accrediting agency the Department
should:
• Require credible evidence that the
agency has experienced and properly
trained peer reviewers; transparent and
consistently applied standards; effective
conflict-of-interest protections; a
demonstrated ability to evaluate
institutional quality and student
outcomes; and adequate procedures for
complaints, appeals, monitoring, teachouts, and institutional closures.
• Establish a formal public-comment
opportunity as part of the initial
recognition process for newly
established accrediting agencies,
particularly where recognition may
affect regulated professions.
• Ensure that State licensing
authorities, educational institutions,
professional organizations, students,
employers, existing accrediting
agencies, and other affected
stakeholders have a meaningful
opportunity to identify potential
implications for educational quality,
licensure eligibility and portability,
workforce mobility, and public
protection, especially if scope of
practice and license portability could be
impacted.
• Require that an agency’s accrediting
experience covers the range of degrees,
certificates, institutions, and programs
for which it seeks recognition. An
agency that has reviewed a single
certificate program should not be
recognized to accredit doctoral
institutions.
• Adopt a three-year initial
recognition period with a required
monitoring report, rather than five
years, and confirm that first-time
applicants receive the most rigorous
review track rather than the lightest.
• Establish explicit risk-based triggers
for enhanced monitoring of newly
recognized agencies, including rapid
growth in portfolio size, an elevated rate
of adverse actions or closures among
accredited institutions, and
accreditation of institutions that
recently changed agencies.
Discussion: The Department believes
that many of the suggestions are
accounted for in the regulations under
§ 602.3 (see that section for a discussion
on reviewers), § 602.14, § 602.15,
§ 602.16, § 602.17, and § 602.24. The
Department declines recommendations
that are not expressly stated in the HEA.
Changes: None.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

§ 602.13

Effect of Recognition

Comments: A few commenters offered
general support for the provision stating
that the Secretary’s recognition of an
agency confers no antitrust immunity.
One commenter stated that some
agencies have operated like
anticompetitive gatekeepers. Another
commenter stated that the regulations
make clear that accreditation should not
be used to impose unnecessary
educational requirements that restrict
entry into a profession.
Discussion: We thank these
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the regulations repeat requirements
that already exist in Federal law and are
enforced through the Department of
Justice. The commenter stated that
inclusion of § 602.13 in the regulations
suggests that the Department seeks to
enforce provisions within the purview
of other Federal agencies. The
commenter recommended eliminating
§ 602.13.
Discussion: The Department noted in
the NPRM—and repeats here—that it is
not the enforcer of antitrust law, but
accrediting agencies are expected to
comply with Federal law, including
avoiding anti-competitive practices. The
purpose of this provision is to make it
clear that agencies cannot affirmatively
claim that they enjoy any antitrust
immunity flowing from their
recognition. ‘‘Repeals of the antitrust
laws by implication from a regulatory
statute are strongly disfavored.’’ Norfolk
& W. Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers
Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 129 (1991) (quoting
United States v. Phila. Nat. Bank, 374
U.S. 321, 350 (1963). There is nothing
in this regulation or the HEA that
suggests that the antitrust laws are
displaced explicitly or implicitly, and
the amendments in § 602.13 make that
explicitly clear.
Furthermore, the Department would
not enforce the antitrust laws under
§ 602.32(3) either. When enforcing
§ 602.32(3), the Department would rely
on, as evidence of an antitrust violation,
a final judgment in state of Federal
court, an admission by an accrediting
agency, or a settlement where the
agency admitted to have engaged in
anticompetitive conduct. Only in these
circumstances would the Department
view the conduct as a negative factor
when reviewing for compliance under
§ 602.32(3). Mere allegations of
anticompetitive conduct would not be a
sufficient basis for the Department to
view that conduct as a negative factor
when adjudicating an agency’s
recognition.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the final rule should make clear
that § 602.13 neither creates antitrust
immunity nor constitutes a finding
concerning the legality of any particular
agency’s conduct.
Discussion: We believe the regulation
is clear as it is currently written.
Nothing in the regulation suggests or
should be taken to mean that the
regulations under § 602.13 confer
antitrust immunity, nor that the
Department has made any findings
concerning any particular agency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should clarify that
legitimate quality assurance activities
undertaken pursuant to Federal
recognition are not themselves evidence
of anticompetitive conduct and that new
agencies do not undermine scope of
practice and patient protections enacted
by State licensure boards.
Discussion: The Department declines
to prescribe specific activities by
accrediting agencies that may or may
not be evidence of anticompetitive
conduct. Each recognized accrediting
agency is responsible for ensuring that
its activities comply with all applicable
Federal and State laws, including
antitrust laws, and may wish to consult
with legal counsel regarding its
compliance obligations.
Changes: None
Comments: A commenter stated that
there is no specific exemption for
accrediting agencies in the antitrust
laws, and case law has long supported
the view that accrediting agencies are
subject to such laws, but at the same
time § 602.17(a)(1)(ii)(E) requires
accrediting agencies, in setting and
applying student achievement
standards, to assess the reasonableness
of institutional and programmatic
earnings relative to cost of attendance.
The commenter also stated that the
Department seeks to have accrediting
agencies conduct a ‘‘cost-benefit’’
analysis under proposed § 602.17(a)(3)
of an institution’s ‘‘budget, resource
utilization, and allocation.’’ The
commenter believes that these
provisions are fundamentally
irreconcilable with the statement that
accrediting agencies are subject to
antitrust laws.
The commenter further expressed that
by compelling accrediting agencies to
engage in cost-based assessments while
simultaneously denying them any
antitrust protection for doing so, the
proposed rule creates a trap: an agency
that complies with the Department’s
mandate exposes itself to an antitrust
claim or enforcement action, while an

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
agency that declines to comply in order
to mitigate antitrust risk faces loss of
recognition. The commenter stated that
the Department cannot lawfully impose
regulatory obligations that force
accrediting agencies to violate antitrust
laws while simultaneously stating that
such agencies are not immune from
those laws.
Discussion: The Department does not
believe the regulations are irreconcilable
with antitrust laws. Nothing in the
regulation requires an agency to set
tuition and fees, assess an institution’s
tuition and fees with respect to other
institutions, otherwise pressure or
compel institutions to set tuition and
fees at a certain level, or act against an
institution because of the institution’s
tuition and fees. The standard requires
an agency to assess whether the
institution has done a reasonable
analysis to determine whether its own
tuition and fees are reasonable in light
of its own costs. Beyond that, agencies
and institutions may wish to consult
with counsel to effectively implement
these regulations within Federal
antitrust law. This does not, contrary to
the commenter’s suggestion, require any
institution to engage in concerted action
with other institutions. In particular,
institutions can make their own
decisions about how to conduct the
cost-benefit analysis, which requires
institutions to engage in reasoned
decision making and to avoid arbitrary
requirements, including those that may
be unduly costly. The Department
certainly does not want accrediting
agencies to engage in any conduct that
would violate the antitrust laws, which
may include accrediting agencies
developing uniform standards for
making decisions in institutions’ cost
benefit analysis that could, directly or
indirectly, fix prices. To the degree that
an accrediting agency has a good faith
belief that a specific action would
violate the antitrust laws and abstains
from taking that action on those
grounds, the Department will credit
those concerns when evaluating the
compliance with the recognition
criteria.
The commenter is also mistaken with
regard to the regulation requiring
agencies to perform cost/benefit
analysis. Agencies are only required to
review cost/benefit analysis performed
by institutions.
Changes: None.
§ 602.14 Purpose and Organization
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department provide a clear
statement in the preamble to the final
rule that programmatic accrediting
agencies, which do not act as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

gatekeepers of Title IV funds and are
recognized under § 602.14(a)(3), are not
subject to § 602.14(b).
Discussion: The commenter is correct;
accrediting agencies that are recognized
under § 602.14(a)(3) are not subject to
the ‘‘separate and independent’’
requirements under § 602.14(b).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that under § 602.14(b)(2)
the Department should adopt a defined
cooling-off period for public members
and should bar owners and shareholders
of accredited institutions from voting on
accreditation decisions.
Discussion: We decline the
commenter’s recommendation. We
believe that the regulations are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that
recognized agencies are separate and
independent without additional
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked for
clarification of the requirements under
§ 602.14(b)(6) regarding
‘‘. . . any complaints received during
the current recognition period that are
material.’’
Discussion: The Department
understands that stakeholders will have
questions regarding implementation of
the final rule. We cannot address every
situation within the regulations because
the regulations are meant to be the
general framework. We believe that the
commenter’s request is subregulatory in
nature, and we may offer subregulatory
guidance as necessary to inform
implementation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should revise
§ 602.14(b)(6) to read ‘‘The authorized
representative of the agency submits a
signed statement certifying that it has
met the requirements to be ‘separate and
independent’ within each petition for
recognition submitted to the
Department, and includes in that
statement information regarding any
complaints received during the current
recognition period that are material to
the agency’s adherence to the ‘separate
and independent’ requirements in this
section.’’ The commenter stated that as
written, the requirement is not clearly
linked to § 602.14(b)(6).
Discussion: As noted by the
commenter, the provision appears in
Section 602.14(b). We believe that it is
clear the complaints referenced regard
complaints related to ‘‘separate and
independent.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
supported the rescission of the joint use

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68645

provisions under § 602.14(c) for the
following reasons:
• The rescission gets rid of conflicts
of interest, and accreditation should be
an independent check to make sure an
institution or program is actually
qualified, not a gatekeeping tool used by
industry groups to protect their own
interests.
• Accrediting agencies should not be
utilized to support or prop up
membership organizations. They should
be independent of influence and focus
completely on accrediting institutions
and/or programs.
• Affiliated trade or membership
organizations should have no role in the
accreditation process, specifically the
appointment of accreditation members,
approval of standards or policies, setting
of fees, approval or oversight of budgets,
oversight of the accrediting body,
management of staff leaders, and
oversight of legal representation.
• The provision will block
programmatic accrediting agencies from
unduly raising costs for students or
contributing to degree inflation.
• The provision, in combination with
amendments under § 602.15, will
prohibit agencies from being run as a
division of a lobbying group.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
supported the changes under § 602.14
and stated that they should be
strengthened to include further
delineation between setting standards
and auditing compliance. One
commenter stated that the Department
should also make clear how often the
relevant Department staff will be
checking to ensure that accrediting
agencies and associations are not
sharing resources. Another commenter
stated that separate and independent
should also refer to the independence of
the Board from the chief executive
officer of the accrediting agency itself.
A different commenter stated that the
Department should require a materially
independent public/consumer presence
and prohibit any single related
professional or educational organization
from appointing, nominating, ratifying,
or effectively controlling a majority
coalition. The same commenter also
recommended to define separate and
independent to require separate legal
incorporation, employer identification
number (EIN), bank accounts, financial
statements, audited books, governing
body, employees, HR function, IT
environment, document repositories,
physical offices, insurance, legal
counsel, lobbying/public-policy
function, communications staff, and

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68646

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

contracting authority. A related
organization should be permitted to
submit input to the accrediting agency
only through the same publicly
documented process available to
unrelated stakeholders.
Discussion: We decline the
recommendations as the Department
believes that the regulations are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that
recognized agencies are separate and
independent.
The Department recognizes that
separating standard-setting from
compliance evaluation may offer
advantages, including reducing
potential conflicts of interest and
promoting more consistent enforcement
of standards. Such an approach could
also introduce additional costs and
operational complexities. We believe
this proposal warrants further
consideration, including examination of
quality assurance practices in other
industries. Accordingly, we are not
adopting additional requirements in this
area in the present rulemaking, but may
consider this approach in future
regulatory actions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the changes to § 602.14. They
believed the revised § 602.14 will
discourage programmatic accrediting
agencies from seeking recognition from
the Department and dramatically
increase operating costs for
programmatic agencies that continue to
seek Department recognition.
Commenters believe that the regulations
do not explicitly recognize that
programmatic accreditation in regulated
professions serve a different purpose
from institutional accreditation. Several
commenters stated that the amendments
will severely disrupt professional
preparation by forcing specialized,
programmatic agencies to sever formal
organizational ties with related
professional associations. The
commenters claimed that for fields such
as education, veterinary sciences, and
speech-language-hearing, this separation
degrades the connection between
academic training and real-world
professional standards. Other
commenters stated that the
Department’s rulemaking did not
demonstrate that complete
organizational separation is necessary
especially because HEA Section
496(a)(3)(C) allows for the Secretary to
waive the separate and independent
requirement.
Finally, one commenter stated that
the additions to § 602.14 impose
additional requirements on accrediting
agencies not present in statute. By
adding additional criteria to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

statutory definition of separate and
independent, the commenters believe
that the Department is violating the
prohibition on establishing additional
criteria for accrediting agencies in
§ 496(g) and is impermissibly changing
Congress’s definition of ‘‘separate and
independent.’’
Discussion: The statute does not
differentiate the purposes of recognized
accrediting agencies—other than
whether they are institutional or
programmatic and whether their Federal
link is an HEA or non-HEA program.
Therefore, there is no statutory basis for
treating specialized, programmatic
agencies differently, as the commenters
suggest. The Department has been clear
that we seek to eliminate conflicts of
interest between accrediting agencies
and related, associated, or affiliated
trade associations, and the separation
required by the regulations achieves that
necessary goal to protect students.
We have addressed our statutory
authority under the Legal Authority
section of this final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
requested an exemption to the
rescission of paragraph § 602.14(c)
(about the joint use of personnel,
services, equipment, or facilities)
including:
• Agencies with 501(c)(3) status. The
commenter stated that legal
arrangements and contracts could be
completed to allow for some shared
services with partnering agencies to
keep costs within range.
• Agencies that accredit institutions
that offer programs like specialized
health, podiatric medicine, and
veterinary services. The commenter
stated that for a relatively small health
profession, requiring duplication of
personnel, office space, technology,
administrative services, and other
infrastructure could impose substantial
new costs.
• Agencies that accredit institutions
that offer counselor education.
• All recognized programmatic
agencies.
• Agencies that distinguish between
resource-sharing that creates that risk
and administrative resource-sharing.
Discussion: From the onset of this
rulemaking effort, the Department has
made clear that we seek to ensure
independence between accrediting
agencies and related, associated, or
affiliated trade associations. We believe
that continuing to allow organizations to
jointly use space increases the risk of
inappropriate collaboration between
entities that may result in credential
inflation that burdens students with
additional unnecessary costs, increases

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the risk of explicit or tacit collusion,
and encourages the outsized influence
of related, associated, or affiliated trade
association that results in the
postsecondary institution itself having
less control over the curriculum and
coursework.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters offered
alternatives to the amendments,
including:
• Allow specific services to be
excepted from the rescission of
§ 602.14(c), including joint use of legal
services, IT services, accounting firms,
evaluator training, technical assistance,
and professional development.
• Give the Secretary the authority to
grant a waiver to the joint-use
prohibition for good cause.
• Specify that employment by a
professional organization serving the
same field as an accrediting agency’s
programs does not, by itself, indicate a
lack of independence.
• Adopt a functional independence
standard.
• Strengthen safeguards as opposed to
institute a categorial exclusion.
• Clarify the scope of communication
restrictions.
• Allow States sufficient time to
amend their statutes and regulations.
• Provide a multi-year transition
period for recognized agencies.
Discussion: We decline the
commenters’ suggestions; for the
rationale, please see the immediate
previous discussion to this section. The
Department understands that agencies
will have questions regarding
implementation of the final rule. We
cannot address every situation within
the regulations because the regulations
are meant to be the general framework.
We believe that the commenters’
requests are subregulatory in nature,
and we may offer subregulatory
guidance as necessary to inform
implementation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
edits to the waiver provisions under the
§ 602.14(d) waiver.
Discussion: We decline suggestions to
the waiver provisions because the final
rule removes the waiver provisions.
Changes: None.
§ 602.15 Administrative and Fiscal
Responsibilities
Comments: Several commenters
offered general support for the
amendments to § 602.15.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
supported the repeal of the prescriptive

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
body-composition mandates at
§ 602.15(a)(3) and § 602.15(a)(4).
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters were
concerned that § 602.15(a)(3) would
allow individuals who have never
worked in a specific field to participate
in the educational evaluation processes.
Additionally, another commenter was
concerned that the removal of
§ 602.15(a)(4) would remove the
requirement for programmatic
accrediting agencies to include
educators, practitioners, and/or
employers on their evaluation, policy,
and decision-making bodies. The
commenter questioned whether
evaluation bodies would be made up of
individuals whose experience might not
be relevant.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters’ assertions. The
regulations under § 602.15(a)(2) require
that ‘‘Competent and knowledgeable
individuals, qualified by education or
experience in their own right, as
appropriate for their roles’’.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that § 602.15(a)(6) is not waivable, and
the Department should say so expressly.
The final rule should provide that
where a majority of an agency’s
decision-making body consists of
current or former senior leadership of,
or fiduciaries to, institutions the agency
accredits, case-by-case recusal does not
satisfy § 602.15(a)(6).
Discussion: Provisions under current
§ 602.15(a)(6) have been removed in this
final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
offered general support for the
provisions under § 602.15(c) stating that
it will help reduce costs to institutions
as a result of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA).
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support and agree that these
changes should help reduce costs
overall for institutions once
implemented.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should clarify that
accrediting agencies should minimize
unnecessary compliance costs and avoid
duplicative demands when the same
evidence is already available through
other sources.
Discussion: We believe there is
already language under § 602.15(c) that
speaks to the commenter’s request and
that states ‘‘The agency conducts its
accreditation activities in a manner that
seeks to avoid unnecessary financial,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

compliance, and administrative
burdens, including by avoiding
duplicative reporting, excessive
documentation requirements, and
unwarranted prescriptive processes.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that the Department has not adequately
explained how it would determine
whether an accreditation activity or
requirement creates an ‘‘unnecessary’’
burden or how this provision would be
applied through the recognition process.
Commenters recommended that the
Department should clarify those items
in § 602.15(c).
Discussion: The Department declines
this recommendation because adding
such factors to the regulations would
result in requirements that are too
prescriptive and narrow. The
Department may provide additional
subregulatory guidance on this issue in
the future if we determine that there is
sufficient lack of understanding among
accrediting agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
encouraged the Department to examine
functional relationships among
accrediting agencies, professional
associations, testing organizations,
certification bodies, and other
organizations.
Discussion: We believe we have
struck a fair and nuanced balance under
the regulations in § 602.14 and § 602.15
to reduce conflicts of interest between
recognized agencies and their
stakeholders. The Department
recognizes that professional
associations, testing organizations,
certification bodies, and other
organizations can provide valuable
expertise, information, and services that
contribute to effective accreditation.
Such cooperation can improve the
development of accreditation standards,
facilitate the evaluation of educational
quality, and reduce unnecessary
duplication of effort.
At the same time, these organizations
may have interests that differ from those
of students and the public. The
Department’s regulations are intended
to prevent relationships that create
conflicts of interest or give outside
organizations inappropriate influence
over accreditation standards or other
decisions, without unnecessarily
restricting legitimate collaboration or
the exchange of expertise. The
Department believes this approach
preserves the benefits of cooperation
while ensuring that accrediting agencies
remain accountable for independently
carrying out their responsibilities to
protect educational quality and the
public interest.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68647

Changes: None.
Comments: Under § 602.15(d), the
Department requires that an accrediting
agency will cooperate with other
accrediting agencies and the Department
in the development of common
templates and forms for institutions or
programs to submit when seeking to
change accrediting agencies. One
commenter suggested that the
Department add language clarifying that
an agency is not required to modify its
standards or process for seeking
accreditation as a part of the
collaboration. The same commenter
suggests that language be added to
§ 602.15(d) to clarify what is meant by
‘‘will cooperate with other agencies and
the Department in the development of
common templates and forms for
institutions or programs to submit when
seeking to change accrediting agencies.’’
Lastly, the commenter suggests that
language should be added to the
regulations indicating that participating
in the collaboration required by
§ 602.15(d) does not violate antitrust
laws.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s suggestions. The
Department does not dictate an agency’s
standards. Per § 602.16 and § 602.17, we
only note which areas an agency must
have standards for and how those
standards are applied. Additionally, this
provision does not require an agency to
modify its accreditation process because
of any cooperation with another
recognized agency.
All forms that the Department
requires an accrediting agency to use
must complete a process called an
information collection request (ICR).
ICRs have public comment periods;
therefore, all agencies will be able to
weigh in on forms or templates related
to institutions or programs seeking to
change agencies. The Department would
not publish a form that violated
antitrust laws. In addition, we do not
enforce the antitrust laws, so it would
not be appropriate to create an
exhaustive list of regulatory provisions
that do not violate antitrust laws.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended extending the
cooperative-format principle to
academic records by amending
§ 602.15(d) to read, ‘‘The agency will
cooperate with other agencies and the
Department in the development of
common templates and forms, and
common data formats for the exchange
of academic records and transfer of
credit information, for institutions or
programs to submit when seeking to
change accrediting agencies or when

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68648

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

evaluating credit earned at another
institution.’’
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s suggestion. The
Department does not seek to standardize
the entire accreditation process.
Institutions and programs still need the
flexibility to develop forms and output
documents that best meet the needs of
their specific student populations.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested removing § 602.15(e)(2).
Commenters believe that the new
requirements dictate the governance
structures of private entities.
Commenters interpreted the provision
as beyond the narrow items delineated
in Section 496(b)(2) of the HEA
regarding public members and stated
that an agency must be free to determine
how it organizes its governance.
Other commenters stated that the
regulation would require that an
accrediting agency’s decision-making
body not have the authority to set
standards or policy if its members are
also representatives of impacted
institutions or programs. Commenters
believe that the provision effectively
prohibits peer review. Due to changes
under § 602.3 that eliminate the
requirement for peer review,
commenters questioned who the
Department expects to be a part of an
agency’s review process of an
institution.
Discussion: The commenters concerns
are unfounded because these regulations
are fully within the Department’s
authority and are simply common-sense
steps to prevent conflicts of interest by
individuals who set an agency’s
standards. The regulations prevent such
individuals from setting standards that
directly benefit their institution or
program(s). The provision continues to
allow anyone the agency chooses to be
a member of the standards-setting body,
which may include members of the
agency’s decision-making body.
However, the members of the standardssetting body cannot vote to adopt or
revise standards or policies if they are
an officer, director, or employee of an
accredited institution or program
because of the conflict of interest that
this poses.
There is nothing to restrict an agency
from including in its decision-making
body employers, students, practitioners,
administrators, academics, and/or
educators from institutions or programs
not accredited by the agency. This
provision also does not limit members
regarding other responsibilities of the
decision-making body, which can
include fiduciary, accreditation
decisions, procedures for implementing

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

standards and policies, and other
administrative procedures.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the requirements for
operational separation from related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization under
§ 602.15(e)(4). The commenters stated
that the provisions will substantially
increase the cost of accreditation while
also limiting the clinical, surgical, and
educational expertise available to
inform standards that directly affect the
preparation of future podiatric
physicians and surgeons. Several
commenters were concerned that the
requirements would go significantly
beyond ensuring independent
accreditation decision-making by
prohibiting the sharing of personnel,
services, facilities, equipment,
information technology infrastructure,
and office space with an affiliated
professional organization. One
commenter requested that the
Department allow specialized and
professional accrediting agencies to
demonstrate independence through
effective, enforceable safeguards rather
than requiring complete physical and
operational separation in all
circumstances.
Discussion: Similar to responses
under § 602.10 and § 602.14, the
Department strongly believes that the
shared use of resources, personnel,
services, equipment, facilities,
information technology, and office
space, has led to the outsized and direct
influence of related, associated, or
affiliated trade association over
accreditation standards and decisions.
These arrangements can give trade
associations influence over the
selection, supervision, and
compensation of personnel, control over
budgets and access to essential services,
and access to confidential accreditation
information. Even in the absence of
direct interference in individual
accreditation decisions, an accrediting
agency’s dependence on a trade
association for essential operational
resources can compromise its ability to
establish standards, conduct
evaluations, and make accreditation
decisions independently, particularly
when those decisions conflict with the
interests of the trade association or its
members.
Such influence can harm students and
the public in several ways. A trade
association may have an interest in
protecting its members from adverse
accreditation decisions, even when
those decisions are necessary to protect
students. It may also seek to weaken
standards that impose costs on its

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

members or, conversely, support
unnecessarily restrictive standards that
protect established institutions from
competition and innovation. These
conflicts of interest can result in
students receiving an inadequate
education, incurring debt for credentials
of limited value, or being denied access
to lower-cost or innovative educational
opportunities. They can also expose
taxpayers to losses when institutions
that fail to provide adequate educational
quality continue to participate in the
Federal student aid programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
should expressly state that ‘‘services’’
include legal, compliance, insurance,
indemnification, government-relations,
lobbying, communications and riskmanagement services.
Discussion: The Department declines
to define ‘‘services’’ further. We believe
the term used here is intentional and is
widely understood within the
community at-large. The regulations
prevent accrediting agencies from
sharing resources with any related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization, including,
but not limited to, services. All of the
items cited by the commenter would be
included in the umbrella concept of
‘‘shared resources,’’ and this term
should be interpreted broadly.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
opposed § 602.15(e)(5) entirely. One
commenter stated that professional
affiliation within the broader field does
not necessarily create a conflict. The
commenter recommended that the rule
focus on whether an individual’s
relationship creates a conflict that could
compromise the specific decision. The
commenter also recommended that the
Department consider clarifying that
recusal applies to decisions affecting an
institution or program with which an
individual has an officer, director, or
employee relationship. This approach
could avoid extending recusal
requirements to circumstances in which
an individual’s professional expertise or
employment within the broader field
does not create a conflict with the
specific matter under consideration.
Discussion: We believe that the
provision is clear and does not require
additional clarification. Again, the
Department strongly believes that close
relationships between accrediting
agencies and related, associated, or
affiliated trade associations has led to
the outsized and direct influence of
accreditation standards and decisions.
This provision ensures that the conflict

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
of interest is removed from the agency
and the aforementioned entities.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
supported § 602.15(e)(7), which would
require an agency that acts to restrict
access to a profession to show by clear
and convincing evidence that, among
other things, the restriction is necessary
to protect the public interest and which
allows such restriction to include
raising the cost or level of required
education or training. Placing the
burden on the agency is the appropriate
allocation where the agency is the only
path into the profession.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
opposed § 602.15(e)(7). One commenter
believed that the provision permits the
Department to second guess substantive
programmatic accreditation standards
whenever those standards may increase
credentialing expectations, educational
cost, or the level of required education
or training. The commenters stated that
a ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’
standard, applied without regard to the
professional consensus underlying a
standard, could place the Department in
the position of second-guessing peerdeveloped, patient safety-driven
professional judgments—such as
minimum competency thresholds tied
to a licensing examination—using an
evidentiary standard that is difficult to
satisfy for any qualitative professional
judgment, however well-founded.
Discussion: The Department will not
second-guess an agency’s standard as
long as it can provide clear and
convincing evidence that the rationale
for the restriction meets the
requirements of § 602.15(e)(7).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department confirm in the
preamble that the public interest
provision under § 602.15(e)(7)
accommodates educational standards
adopted to meet independent national
certification and State licensure
requirements and to protect patient
safety in relevant fields.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenter in that
§ 602.15(e)(7)(i) requires an accrediting
agency to provide clear and convincing
evidence that the independent national
certification requirements are necessary
to protect the public interest, the
expected public benefits outweigh the
cost the public, and no less restrictive
alternative would protect the public
interest when restricting access to
employment in a profession,
occupation, or vocation. As noted in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

§ 602.23(h) of the final rule, an agency
must not have policies that require
institutions or programs to violate any
State law.
Changes: None.
Comments: Commenters made
multiple suggestions for § 602.15(e)(7)
including: (1) stating that faculty and
practitioner shortages must be part of
the credential inflation analysis under
§ 602.15(e)(7), (2) requiring a lessrestrictive alternative analysis, not
merely requiring quality rationale (3)
requiring an occupational entry impact
assessment before every material impact
change, and (4) having a recognized
programmatic accrediting agency
require Department approval before
creating a bridge, equivalency,
prerequisite-approval, or academicclearance mechanism that determines
whether education completed outside
the accredited program satisfies
requirements for individual
occupational eligibility.
Discussion: It appears the same
commenter submitted multiple
individual comments to § 602.15(e) with
the most being to (e)(7). We decline the
suggestions because we believe the
commenter’s suggestions are outside of
the scope of § 602.15(e)(7).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
• Add § 602.15(e)(7)(ii)(D): ‘‘obtaining
or acting to maintain any provision of
Federal or State law, regulation, or
program requirement that conditions
employment, appointment, licensure,
certification, or reimbursement on
accreditation by that agency
specifically, or that excludes graduates
of programs accredited by another
agency.’’
• Add § 602.15(e)(7)(iv): ‘‘An agency
named in any Federal or State law,
regulation, or program requirement
described in paragraph (e)(7)(ii)(D) must
disclose, in each petition for
recognition, each such provision known
to the agency and any communication
by the agency or by any related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization with the
issuing authority concerning its
adoption, retention, or amendment.’’
Discussion: We decline the additions.
As noted in § 602.23(h) of the final rule,
an agency must not have policies that
require institutions or programs to
violate any Federal or State law. We
believe the suggested amendments
would be overly burdensome for
agencies and produce no substantially
more beneficial impact than the new
final rule.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68649

Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
• Add § 602.15(e)(8): ‘‘Publicly
disclose each requirement in the
agency’s own standards that obligates a
student or trainee to purchase or obtain
any product, service, insurance,
credential, examination, or membership,
together with the identity of any related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization that
provides, sponsors, or receives any
payment or other consideration in
connection with it.’’
• Add § 602.15(e)(9): ‘‘Where the
agency’s standards require a student or
trainee to obtain any product, service,
insurance, credential, or examination,
the agency must require as a condition
of accreditation that the institution or
program . . .’’
Discussion: We decline the additions.
We believe they would be too
prescriptive. However, accrediting
agencies may voluntarily adopt the
commenter’s suggestions, and the
Department would encourage such
transparency.
Change: None.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested removing § 602.15(f) because
the language is unnecessary as agencies
do not and, under the law, cannot
restrict an institution’s legal obligations,
including regarding the First
Amendment. The commenter stated that
public institutions already follow
Federal law to implement the First
Amendment’s freedoms of religion,
speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Another commenter stated that agencies
do not have the expertise to interpret
complex constitutional law issues.
One commenter suggested alternative
language: ‘‘The agency’s accreditation
standards, policies must not restrict
public institutions from fulfilling their
obligations under the First Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
These standards similarly also must not
restrict any private institutions that,
through their institutional policies,
guarantee the same or similar
protections for students or faculty,
unless the institution has a religious
mission.’’ Finally, the commenter asked
the Department to clarify ‘‘. . . unless
the institution has a religious mission.’’
Discussion: The Department declines
the commenters’ suggestion to remove
the provision. The Department seeks to
remind agencies of the obligations
under the Constitution as required
under E.O. 14279 to ensure that
‘‘accreditors are not using their role
under Federal law to encourage or force
institutions to violate State laws, unless
such State laws violate the Constitution
or Federal law.’’ The Department will

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68650

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

maintain the reference to ‘‘enforcement
practices’’ in the regulation to ensure
that agencies understand that they
cannot enforce any agency provision,
standard, or policy on an institution or
program that violates the First
Amendment. E.O. 14279 provided
examples that the administration
believes were violations of the First
Amendment.
Finally, regarding the phrase ‘‘unless
the institution has a religious mission,’’
the final rule is consistent with existing
law for a religious-mission institution
because the institution would not be
required to adopt viewpoint-range,
intellectual-diversity policies, or
academic-freedom protections that
would conflict with that mission. The
substitute duty is inquiry and student
learning consistent with the mission.
This is not a general exemption from
602.16 standards, eligibility for title IV,
HEA funds, student-achievement
standards, fiscal capacity, or the core
curriculum requirement in 602.18(b)(3).
Separately, the final rule also says
nothing in the viewpoint-neutrality
paragraph for agencies that require an
accrediting agency that itself has a
religious mission to be neutral with
respect to viewpoints. This is an agencylevel clause, not an institutional one.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
sought guidance or clarifications about
various provisions under this section.
Discussion: The Department may
issue subregulatory guidance or
clarifications regarding specific issues
addressed in these regulations if,
following publication of the final rule,
the Department determines that further
clarification is necessary to support the
regulated community’s understanding
and implementation of the rule.
Changes: None.
§ 602.16 Accreditation and
Preaccreditation Standards
Comments: A few commenters
supported the amendments to § 602.16.
One commenter stated that the changes
to § 602.16 would strengthen the
requirements for agencies to evaluate
student outcomes, which is an
important improvement that would
benefit students and taxpayers.
Agencies would be required to set
standards for student achievement at the
institutional and program levels, and
the proposal allows agencies to tailor
those standards for each institution.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern with the
amendments to § 602.16. One

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

commenter stated that the changes
undermine longstanding professional
accreditation standards and put
students’ eligibility for licensure at risk.
Another commenter stated that defining
success solely in relation to an
institution’s mission, and thereby
allowing different standards for
different programs, could endanger the
public because veterinary licensure
authorizes practice across the full scope
of the profession.
Discussion: We disagree with
commenters. Except for the cross
reference to § 602.17(a)(1) under
§ 602.16(a)(1)(i), the changes to this
section are technical in nature and do
not reference licensure. The regulations
under § 602.16(a)(1)(i) currently allow
for ‘‘. . . different standards for
different institutions or programs . . .’’.
This is not a new policy; the statute has
expressly permitted different standards
for different institutions and programs
since 2008 and the Department’s
implementing regulations since 2009.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department provided
insufficient explanation for the change
under § 602.16(a)(1)(i) that adds ‘‘. . . at
the institutional and program level
. . .’’ The commenter believes that the
Department cannot use the regulations
to impose an additional accreditation
requirement that Congress did not
authorize or to dictate the level at which
an accrediting agency must evaluate
student achievement.
Discussion: The Department has not
added additional requirements or
standards to the regulations. The
accrediting agency is responsible for
reviewing and confirming academic
quality at an institution, and that
includes the programs that the
institution offers. That an agency would
have standards for student success at
both institutional and programmatic
levels is consistent with the best reading
of the statute. The commenter should
recognize that review at both the
institutional and programmatic levels is
necessary to account for variations in
quality and outcomes across programs
within the same institution.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
supported the addition of ‘‘at the
institutional and program level’’ in
§ 602.16(a)(1)(i). Institution-level
averages conceal program-level failure,
and making the program level explicit is
worthwhile even though the Department
characterizes the accompanying change
from ‘‘set forth clear expectations’’ to
‘‘establish requirements’’ as not altering
the regulation’s effect. The commenter
requested that the Department confirm

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

in the preamble that agencies retain
discretion to apply program-level
review proportionately—an institution
offering more than 120 programs and
one offering six programs should not
face identical documentation volume
requirements for the same regulatory
purpose.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for their support. Yes, agencies retain
discretion to apply program-level
review proportionately. We thank the
commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify that agencies in § 602.16(a)(1)
should assess whether undergraduate
students have access to some form of
review that is structurally independent
of the original decision-maker for
academic and administrative grievances
that do not involve discrimination.
Discussion: We decline the
commenter’s recommendation because
we believe the new process outlined
under § 602.23(l) is sufficient.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that § 602.16(a)(1)(i)
should include time-to-declaration and
major-transition metrics for undeclared,
pre-major or exploratory students.
Discussion: The Department declines
to add the metrics proposed by the
commenter. Such requirements would
be too prescriptive, and we prefer to
allow accrediting agencies to make their
own decisions about exactly what to
measure within the parameters of
602.16(a)(1)(i).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended updating § 602.16(a)(1)(i)
to read:
‘‘(i) Success with respect to student
achievement at the institutional and
program level in relation to the
institution’s mission, which may
include different standards for different
institutions or programs and may
recognize multiple pathways to
academic progress and achievement, as
established by the institution, including,
as appropriate, consideration of State
licensing examinations, course
completion, job placement rates, and
credit for prior learning, as described in
§ 602.17(a)(1).’’
Discussion: The Department declines
the recommendation of the commenter
as we believe that the suggestion is
technical in nature. The regulation says
‘‘. . . including, as appropriate’’, which
gives agencies and institutions
flexibility to recognize multiple
pathways to academic progress and
achievement.
Changes: None.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Comments: One commenter
supported the proposed provision under
§ 602.16(f) that would permit agencies
to adopt additional standards beyond
Section 496 of the HEA only where
those standards are lawful and
consistent with ensuring institutional or
programmatic quality and integrity. The
commenter stated that standards that are
neither required by statute nor
connected to quality or integrity impose
cost without producing educational
value, and students pay for that cost in
tuition.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenter for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
opposed § 602.16(f) that states an agency
may establish any additional lawful
accreditation standards that are
consistent with ensuring institutional or
programmatic quality and integrity as it
deems appropriate. One commenter
stated that this provision is an open
door for the current administration to
use partisan influence to promote a
conservative agenda. Several other
commenters stated that the amendment
exceeded the Department’s authority
and had concerns that the Department
would have too much discretion to
determine what ‘‘lawful’’ means.
Discussion: We believe the
commenters misinterpreted the
provision. The provision allows an
accrediting agency to establish
additional lawful standards, not the
Department. The commenters should
note that the Department has not added
additional standards under § 602.16.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the NPRM repeatedly references
that the Department will clarify the
regulations in the Accreditation
Handbook, including under part
§ 602.16. The commenter stated that
because guidance is not legally binding
like regulation, leaving core
implementation details to future
guidance creates legal and operational
uncertainty for accrediting agencies and
institutions.
Discussion: The Department routinely
issues subregulatory guidance to clarify
regulatory requirements and facilitate
implementation. Consistent with this
longstanding practice, the Department
uses the Accreditation Handbook to
provide policy and operational guidance
to accrediting agencies regarding
implementation of 34 CFR part 602. To
the extent the commenter’s requests
concern matters appropriately
addressed through subregulatory
guidance, the Department may provide
further clarification, including through

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

the Accreditation Handbook, as
necessary to support implementation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
strong support for the regulations under
§ 602.16(g)(3) and (g)(4).
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support. Please note that
there are no proposed changes to these
provisions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department add § 602.16(g):
‘‘The agency’s requirements must be
stated in its own published standards.
The agency may not require institutions
or programs to conform to, or evaluate
them against, the standards, the code of
ethics, code of conduct, guidelines,
policies, or positions of any other
organization, whether by incorporation
by reference or otherwise, except as
required by applicable Federal or State
law.’’
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s recommendation. We
believe that the suggestion is already
covered under § 602.18(a)(3).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that proposed § 602.16(f) permits an
agency to establish ‘‘any additional
lawful accreditation standards.’’ The
commenter requested that the
Department confirm in the final rule
that a standard requiring an institution,
its faculty, or its students to affirm a
contested viewpoint as a condition of
accreditation is not a ‘‘lawful’’ standard
within the meaning of § 602.16(f).
Discussion: If faculty or a student
believes that an agency is
inappropriately or illegally requiring
them to affirm a contested viewpoint,
they can file a formal complaint with
the agency itself. If the resolution is not
satisfactory to the faculty or student,
they can submit formal complaints
about an agency to the Department at
[email protected] or call 202–
453–7615. The commenter may also
attend a NACIQI meeting and provide
public comment regarding an
accrediting agency. The Department
encourages the commenter to consult
the Federal Register and the NACIQI
website for announcements and
information regarding upcoming
meetings and opportunities for public
comment.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter made
multiple individual recommendations
for § 602.16, including:
• Require accreditation standards to
distinguish objective competency
requirements from global discretionary
judgments.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68651

• Require that if a program director
signs or transmits a verification
document, the recipient should know
what exactly is being attested.
• Direct agencies to prefer licensure
outcomes, completion, validated
competency performance, employment
outcomes.
• Prohibit program completion
documents from becoming private
occupational licenses.
• Be aware that accreditation should
set outcomes, not create a national
ladder from associate through graduate
education.
• State that Federally recognized
accrediting agencies may define
minimum educational outcomes but
may not prescribe subordinate
curricular architecture, competency
taxonomies, assessment methods or
progression systems unless those
prescriptions satisfy a documented
necessity and least restrictivealternative test.
Discussion: We thank the commenter
for submitting multiple thoughtful
recommendations to this section of the
rule; however, we decline to accept
them because they go beyond the
statutory framework, and we believe
that they are more aspirational requests
than specific regulatory proposals.
Changes: None.
§ 602.17 Application of Standards in
Reaching Accreditation Decisions
Comments: Several commenters
offered support for the amendments
under § 602.17(a)(1). One commenter
stated that agencies have not always
done a good job upholding high
standards of student achievement. The
commenter stated that agencies also
rarely sanction their member
institutions for poor student outcomes.
The Department’s language does not
specify a single numerical cutoff where
agencies need to set their minimum
expectations, but they must have
minimum expectations documented.
The commenters stated that one of the
most critical minimum standards for
agencies to enforce is the minimum
expectations for retention, completion,
and graduation rates.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support. We
believe that these amendments provide
reasonable parameters that accrediting
agencies can use to ensure educational
quality without imposing specific
mechanisms that agencies must use in
their evaluation of institutions or
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: The largest percentage of
comments focused on the proposed
changes in § 602.17. Commenters raised

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68652

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

concerns about: (1) the Department’s
focus on economic returns in the
assessment of student achievement,
which they believed did not properly
take into account institutional type or
mission; (2) the inclusion of cost/benefit
analysis when agencies are evaluating
compliance with standards for facilities,
equipment, and supplies and student
support services; (3) the lack of
availability of reliable data to assess
student success outcomes with respect
to student achievement under
§ 602.17(a)(1)(ii); (4) infringement into
institutional autonomy, governance, and
management, especially in regards to
faculty; (5) minimal guidance or
explanation of the new provisions; (6)
administrative burden and cost
implications; (7) the Department’s lack
of authority to add standards; and (8)
how the Department will enforce
provisions containing the phrases
‘‘academic freedom’’ and ‘‘intellectual
diversity.’’
Commenters offered language
suggestions, revisions, clarifications,
and many asked for complete rescission
of the proposal. Several institutions
requested that the agencies that accredit
their institutions receive special
considerations with the final rule based
on the populations they serve, including
but not limited to religious institutions/
programs, minority-serving institutions,
tribal colleges and universities, small
institutions, liberal arts institutions, and
specialized institutions. If no changes
are made in the final rule, some
commenters requested that the
Department release extensive
subregulatory guidance explaining each
of the provisions.
Discussion: For more information
regarding the Department’s legal
authority to establish these
requirements, please see the Legal
Authority section of this final rule.
The changes to this section do not
prescribe thresholds. An agency retains
the authority to establish a threshold for
compliance with the standards. The
Department believes these changes will
strengthen educational quality by
prioritizing positive student outcomes
over procedural compliance
requirements that lack a demonstrated
connection to those outcomes. These
changes will result in lower costs for
taxpayers and an increase in benefits for
students. The Department declines to
offer exceptions or carve-outs to these
provisions because we seek to
standardize application of the
standards.
Following publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register, the Department
may issue nonbinding subregulatory
guidance if it determines that additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

clarification is necessary to facilitate
implementation.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the amendments under
§ 602.17(a)(1). Opposition included, but
was not limited to, legality, cost to
agencies and institutions, lack of
necessary data, and too much focus on
the return-on-investment metrics.
Commenters stated that the proposal
exceeds the Department’s authority and
constitutes Federal overreach. 496(a)(5)
of the HEA prescribes the specific
standards for accreditation. Some
commenters believe that the Department
has added new standards that do not
currently exist in statute. The
commenters often cited Section 496(g)
of the HEA as expressing Congressional
intent on the limitation of the
Department’s authority to establish
additional standards: ‘‘Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to permit the
Secretary to establish criteria for
accrediting agencies or associations that
are not required by this section. Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to prohibit
or limit any accrediting agency or
association from adopting additional
standards not provided for in this
section. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to permit the Secretary to
establish any criteria that specifies,
defines, or prescribes the standards that
accrediting agencies or associations
shall use to assess any institution’s
success with respect to student
achievement.’’ Commenters cited
Section 496(o) that states the Secretary
‘‘shall not promulgate any regulation
with respect to the standards of an
accrediting agency or association
described in subsection (a)(5).’’
Commenters also cited Section 103 of
the Department of Education
Organization Act as evidence of
Congressional intent on the limits of the
Department’s authority: ‘‘No provision
of a program administered by the
Secretary or by any other officer of the
Department shall be construed to
authorize the Secretary or any such
officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, over any accrediting
agency or association, or over the
selection or content of library resources,
textbooks, or other instructional
materials by any educational institution
or school system, except to the extent
authorized by law.’’
Commenters stated that amendments
are too rigid and by themselves do not
reveal the quality or value of an
institution. Commenters stated that

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

educational quality cannot be measured
solely through completion rates,
employment outcomes, licensure exam
results, or other metrics related to
programs’ return on investment. Other
comments stated that the regulations
will increase compliance costs to
agencies and institutions, which will
shift focus for quality to compliance for
agencies and institutions and ultimately
increase costs for students.
Finally, commenters stated that the
Department’s original proposal listed
these requirements under § 602.16, but
they were moved to § 602.17 during a
subsequent day of negotiated
rulemaking. Commenters believed that
this was a tacit acknowledgement by the
Department that it was adding extrastatutory standards.
Commenters offered many suggestions
to the proposed regulations, including,
but not limited to, rescinding the
proposal or making the amendments
optional or providing exceptions or
carve-outs for a wide range of
institutions and programs.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters’ statements. Sections
496(g), (o), and (p) limit the Secretary’s
authority to prescribe the substantive
content of accreditation standards,
particularly student achievement
standards. They do not prohibit the
Secretary from regulating how
recognized agencies apply and enforce
their standards. Section 496(a)(4)(A)
expressly requires the Secretary to
determine that an agency ‘‘consistently
applies and enforces standards,’’ and
Sections 496(a)(6) and (c) establish
requirements governing accreditation
review and general operating
procedures, respectively.
The Department therefore interprets
Section 496 as distinguishing between
prescribing the substance of an
accrediting standard and establishing
recognition criteria governing the
consistent and lawful application of an
agency’s own standards. The
Department maintains that the
substance of this section is related to the
Department’s evaluation of how an
agency applies its standards, and does
not prescribe the content of the
standards themselves.
For further discussion please refer to
the Legal Authority section of this final
rule. The Department is not providing
exceptions to requirements in the
regulations because the statute does not
support the positions advocated by the
commenters. The regulations follow the
statute in establishing clear, uniform
criteria for recognition of agencies, with
only minimal differentiation in
requirements between institutional and
programmatic accrediting agencies.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
supported language related to academic
freedom and intellectual diversity
throughout § 602.17(a)(2). Commenters
stated that academic freedom and
intellectual diversity reflect the
principles that characterize American
higher education. Another commenter
stated that expecting agencies to
evaluate intellectual diversity and
protect open inquiry is not political
bullying; it is a long-overdue return to
basic academic standards. Assessing
whether an institution allows diverse
viewpoints directly measures whether it
is actually teaching critical thinking.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed language related to faculty,
academic freedom, and intellectual
diversity throughout § 602.17(a)(2).
Commenters stated the following in
opposition to the provisions:
• They believe the proposed changes
are unconstitutional and infringe on
free-speech protections. Some
commenters believe that the Department
will target agencies and institutions that
do not align with the Administration’s
agenda or political ideology. As a result,
agencies will limit faculty speech at
accredited institutions for fear of losing
recognition, and institutions will limit
faculty speech for fear of losing
accreditation.
• They believe that the changes are
unlawful, and raise objections similar to
those that they raised in opposition of
§ 602.17(a)(1).
• They believe that the preamble to
the NPRM effectively encourages
institutions to use the Department’s
definition of ‘‘academic freedom’’ and
may functionally compel agencies to
adopt standards prescribed by the
Department.
• They believe that the evaluation
criteria will influence faculty behavior
and encourage self-censorship even
without directly restricting speech,
particularly when they affect hiring,
promotion, tenure, research, instruction,
shared governance, or continued
employment.
• They believe that there are no clear
definitions of concepts like: ‘‘academic
freedom’’, ‘‘intellectual diversity’’,
‘‘sufficient number of appropriately
qualified faculty’’, ‘‘regularly evaluated
on the performance of their
instructional, research, or service
responsibilities’’. The concepts are
vague and can be misused to justify any
adverse action that the Department
seeks to take against an accrediting
agency or institution.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

• They believe that accrediting
agencies lack the legal expertise and
authority claims of constitutional and
other legal violations, faculty speech
disputes, and whether institutions have
achieved sufficient intellectual
diversity.
Discussion: See prior discussion
under Legal Authority and § 602.17(a)(1)
of this final rule. Academic freedom and
intellectual diversity are important
considerations in evaluating the quality
of higher education. The new
regulations require accrediting agencies,
when applying their standards, to
consider institutional policies and
practices relating to academic freedom
and intellectual diversity. Contrary to
the hyperbole exercised by several
commenters, the new regulations also
do not prescribe the content of policies
relating to academic freedom and
diversity, do not require institutions to
adopt particular policies, and do not
require accrediting agencies to establish
separate substantive standards in these
areas.
An institution’s decision not to adopt
a formal policy on academic freedom or
intellectual diversity does not, by itself,
constitute noncompliance. Rather, an
accrediting agency must consider
relevant institutional policies and
practices in the context of its existing
standards and the institution’s mission.
Where an agency has adopted standards
addressing these matters, it must apply
and enforce those standards
consistently.
These provisions govern the process
by which accrediting agencies evaluate
institutions, rather than prescribing
particular accreditation standards.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters had
concerns with the required cost/benefit
analysis under § 602.17(a)(3).
Commenters stated that they believe
that the requirement infringes on
institutional governance, will increase
costs and burden to institutions, and
that the regulation is vague and unclear.
A few commenters asked for
clarification on whether the agency or
institution conducts the cost/benefit
analysis.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters. The Department
provides more than $100 billion
annually in Pell Grants and Federal
student loans, a substantial portion of
which supports institutional revenue
through tuition, fees, and other charges.
Many institutions depend on these
Federal student aid programs to sustain
their operations. Accordingly, the
Department has a responsibility to
ensure that institutions receiving
Federal funds exercise sound fiscal

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68653

stewardship, including by conducting
meaningful cost-benefit analyses and
evaluating how institutional spending
decisions affect costs borne by students.
Section 602.16(a)(1)(iv) currently
requires that an ‘‘agency’s accreditation
standards must establish requirements
for the institutions or programs it
accredits’’ in the area of ‘‘Facilities,
equipment, and supplies.’’ Because
cost/benefit analysis is an integral part
of responsible capital investment
planning, the Department is requiring
agencies to review whether institutions
have conducted cost/benefit analysis
and for agencies to review them if they
are performed by an institution.
We disagree that this provision
infringes on institutional governance
because it only requires agencies to
review analysis that is performed; there
is no requirement for any institution to
do or enact anything.
Cost-benefit analysis decreases costs
and increases educational quality for
students by ensuring that capital
expenditures are properly scrutinized
and justified.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
supported replacing a mandatory selfstudy format with a comprehensive
process that may include a self-study
under § 602.17(b). One commenter
noted that the change preserves rigorous
evaluation while allowing institutions
and accrediting agencies to use better
and more efficient methods to
demonstrate quality and continuous
improvement.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
opposed replacing a mandatory selfstudy format with a comprehensive
process that may include a self-study
under § 602.17(b). One commenter
stated that accreditation should be an
opportunity for an academic community
to reflect on its internal practices as it
typically leads to new insights and
practices like how to more effectively
assess whether classes are meeting
student learning outcomes. Another
commenter stated the self-study is a
fundamental component of the peerreview process, providing institutions
and programs an opportunity to
evaluate their own performance against
an agency’s standards and identify areas
for improvement before and during peer
review.
Discussion: We agree with
commenters that an institution or
program should reflect on its internal
practices and gain new insights on how
to improve student learning outcomes.
Under this final rule, we added more of

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68654

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

a regulatory framework under
§ 602.17(a)(1)(i) to help guide agencies
on how to apply accreditation standards
that focus on the assessment of critical
student outcomes. These outcomes
include, as applicable, State licensing or
certification examination results; postcompletion or graduation outcomes,
including employment and continued
education; and educational and
economic returns evaluated in relation
to the program’s credential level, length,
occupational context, and total cost of
attendance.
We do not share commenters’ belief
that a self-study is the only assessment
approach in determining educational
quality. The Department has not
rescinded the requirement for
institutional or programmatic review,
given that under this final rule, an
institution or program must be able to
conduct a comprehensive review that
will help in assessing the educational
quality. Instead of maintaining a onesize-fits-all approach, the Department is
providing agencies with the flexibility
to innovate its comprehensive selfevaluation process.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed language under § 602.17(g) and
(h) because they believe the provision
could cause institutions to abandon
lawful outreach, recruitment, support,
research, or demographic data collection
out of fear for their accreditation.
Discussion: The provision does not
eliminate lawful outreach, recruitment,
support, research, or demographic data
collection. Instead, it prohibits an
agency from having standards that
require institutions to violate Federal or
State law. For example, on June 29,
2023, in Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. v. President and Fellow of Harvard
College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023),10 the U.S.
Supreme Court held that an institution
violates the Constitution’s Equal
Protection Clause and Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act when it uses race-based
admissions programs that provide
substantive advantages to applicants
based upon their race. This means that
an agency cannot have standards that
encourage, direct, or otherwise require
institutions or programs to have
admissions targets based on race.
Changes: None.
§ 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in
Decision-Making
Comments: Several commenters
supported the provision in paragraph
10 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. President
and Fellow of Harvard College—https://
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_
hgdj.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

§ 602.18(b)(4) that requires that agency
decisions are neutral with respect to
viewpoint and ideology that are
unrelated to its accrediting policies or
standards, except in the case of an
agency with a religious mission. Several
commenters provided personal
testimony of when they believed
agencies that accredited their
institutions were not viewpoint neutral.
One commenter stated that a
neutrality standard holds that
accrediting agencies may not condition
accreditation on an institution’s
adoption of any contested philosophical
or theoretical framework. The
commenter suggested that the
Department release implementation
guidance stating the following: ‘‘In
determining whether an agency is a
reliable authority as to the quality of
education or training offered, the
Secretary shall consider whether the
agency conditions accreditation on an
institution’s or program’s adoption of
specific philosophical, theoretical, or
ideological frameworks that are
contested within the relevant scholarly
literature. An agency may require
student engagement with bodies of
scholarly knowledge relevant to
professional practice.’’
Another commenter stated that
accrediting agencies should apply
legitimate quality standards without
rewarding favored institutions or
punishing disfavored ones because of
viewpoint.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support. While we do not agree
with implementing the commenter’s
suggested text, the Department may
offer subregulatory guidance as
necessary with the appropriate guidance
for the field to inform implementation.
Regarding commenters that had
concerns about an accrediting agency,
commenters can submit formal
complaints about an accrediting agency
to the Department by emailing
[email protected] or calling
202–453–7615. The commenters may
also attend a NACIQI meeting and
provide public comment regarding an
accrediting agency. The Department
encourages the commenters to consult
the Federal Register and the NACIQI
website for announcements and
information regarding upcoming
meetings and opportunities for public
comment. Please refer to the
Implementation Date of These
Regulations section of this final rule
when submitting complaints about an
agency regarding regulations that may
not yet be effective.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters were
opposed to § 602.18(b)(4), which

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requires viewpoint and ideological
neutrality. Many of these commenters
expressed their belief that political
officials at the Department could
characterize legitimate academic-quality
decisions as ideological discrimination.
Commenters also believe the
requirements to be too vague and
undefined. Some commenters stated
that this provision, in combination with
provisions under § 602.17 related to
academic freedom and intellectual
diversity, will grant the Federal
government authority to scrutinize
academic governance, faculty hiring and
evaluation, and academic freedom of
institutions. Several commenters stated
that this requirement seems to be
diametrically opposed to the repeated
rationalization by the Department for
the proposed regulation change, which
was to reduce the administrative and
financial burden required of
accreditation.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters’ assertions. The
Department is regulating in this area to
ensure that no viewpoint is preferred.
This regulation ensures that accrediting
agencies remain neutral and prioritize
diversity of thought on campuses. A
commenter to this rule offered a
relevant summary of the provision by
writing that ‘‘The neutrality principle
we endorse forecloses both outcomes
equally. Accrediting agencies may
require student engagement with bodies
of scholarly knowledge relevant to
professional practice; they may not
require that students demonstrate
adoption of, or alignment with, any
particular interpretation of that
knowledge. This principle derives its
durability precisely from its symmetry:
it binds future Departments as much as
it binds current ones, and it binds in
both ideological directions.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
questioned why agencies and
institutions with a religious mission
were exempt from the requirement
under § 602.18(b)(4). One commenter
stated that there is no alternative
accountability mechanism for agencies
with a religious mission. Another
commenter stated that the proposal
prioritizes religious accrediting agencies
despite the United States having a
longstanding separation of State and
religion. Increasing religious
prioritization neglects positions of
public trust, improperly shifts focus
away from student achievement to
compelling institutions to adopt illegal
and discriminatory religious ideology
and practices, and intrudes on State and
local authority.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Discussion: The Department must
exempt agencies with a religious
mission from this provision because the
First Amendment guarantees the free
exercise of religion. Regulations limiting
the free exercise of religion are contrary
to the U.S. Constitution.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that under 602.18(b)(4) the Department
narrow the scope of the provision to
prohibit specific, identifiable coercion:
an agency may not condition
accreditation on requiring students or
faculty to affirm a particular ideological
position or penalize an institution solely
for protected academic speech.
Discussion: The provision does not
allow an agency to require students or
faculty to affirm a particular ideology.
The provision requires the agency itself
to make decisions that are neutral with
respect to viewpoint or ideology of the
accredited institution or program. An
agency cannot penalize an institution or
program solely for protected academic
speech; freedom of speech is a
constitutionally protected right, which
the Department affirms under § 602.15
and § 602.17.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the Department
amend § 602.18(b)(4) to read: ‘‘Has
adopted and followed procedures to
ensure that agency decisions are neutral
with respect to viewpoint and ideology
that are unrelated to its accrediting
policies or standards, except that
nothing in this paragraph requires an
accrediting agency with a religious
mission to be neutral with respect to
viewpoints, and nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to limit
paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, or to require an agency to treat
as a departure from viewpoint or
ideological neutrality an institution’s or
program’s religious mission-based
policies, decisions, and practices
evaluated under paragraph (b)(3) of this
section or under § 602.17(a)(2).’’
The commenter claims that the
exception in § 602.18(b)(4) is written for
the accrediting agency and the religiousmission provisions at § 602.18(b)(3) and
§ 602.17(a)(2), by contrast, are written
for the institution.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
suggested language. This provision
specifically provides an exemption for
agencies with a religious mission to
ensure viewpoint neutrality. Provisions
under § 602.17(a)(2) require all agencies
to apply standards related to an
institution’s faculty that are consistent
with the institution’s religious mission.
We believe that the regulatory text
provides the necessary clarity.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department protect descriptive
and empirical scholarship. The use of
demographic categories or terminology
in legitimate research should not, by
itself, be treated as evidence that
scholarship advances a particular
political or ideological agenda.
Discussion: Generally, the use of
demographic categories or terminology
in legitimate research should not, by
itself, be treated as evidence that
scholarship advances a particular
political or ideological agenda.
However, the Department cannot opine
on hypothetical situations. Once the
final rule is effective, the Department
will confront issues related to specific
agencies, institutions, programs, or
students as they arise.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter offered
support for the amendments to
§ 602.18(c), which broaden the
alternative standards provision to reach
practices that advance credential and
degree completion and promote new
models of education. The commenter
asked the Department to confirm in the
preamble that § 602.18(c) is available as
a pathway for approving direct
assessment and competency-based
programs pending any broader
Departmental action on the credit hour.
Discussion: Nothing prevents an
accrediting agency from applying the
flexibility in § 602.18(c) to its review
process for direct assessment programs.
However, in this circumstance, the
agency must ensure that its approval
process for direct assessment programs
meet the requirements under § 668.10
and all other requirements in this part.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opposed
the Department’s proposal to broaden
§ 602.18(c) beyond ‘‘special
circumstances’’ and ‘‘undue hardship
on students,’’ and the three-year
renewable noncompliance window. The
commenter asserted that, taken together,
these provisions convert what is
supposed to be a narrow safety valve
into a general license for indefinite
noncompliance. The commenter
recommended restoring current
§ 602.18(c) and limiting any
noncompliance period to the timeframe
in § 602.20(a)(2) without a separate
extension mechanism.
Discussion: We believe the
commenter was referring to § 602.18(d).
The Department’s regulations do not
permit indefinite noncompliance.
Regulations under § 602.20(a)(2) apply
to the amendments under § 602.18(d).
The amendments under § 602.18(d) are
solely meant to provide a good cause

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68655

extension to demonstrate compliance
for circumstances outside the
institution’s or program’s control, such
as a natural disaster.
As noted in the NPRM, current
regulations under § 602.18(d) are moved
to § 602.20(i) with modifications.
Changes: None.
§ 602.19 Monitoring and Reevaluation
of Accredited Institutions and Programs
Comments: One commenter
recommended that § 602.19(b) be
amended to add a requirement that an
agency’s monitoring and evaluation
approaches include a mechanism to
track whether a self-identified
institutional concern has appeared in
similar language across prior review
cycles and apply a heightened
monitoring or documentedimprovement standard once such
recurrence is identified, rather than
resetting to a standard review each
cycle.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the suggestion of the
commenter around Section 602.19;
however, this section was not discussed
in the negotiated rulemaking process or
included in the revised final rule and
remains unchanged.
Changes: None.
§ 602.20 Enforcement of Standards
Comments: A few commenters offered
general support for the amendments to
this section, in combination with
regulations under § 602.18 and § 602.25.
One commenter stated that institutions
should know the standards that apply,
receive notice of deficiencies, have
reasonable time to respond, and hold a
meaningful process for review.
Discussion: We agree and thank the
commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that § 602.20(h) is unclear as proposed.
Specifically, the commenter argues that
the phrase requiring an agency to ‘‘have
a policy for restoring accreditation’’ is
not consistent with the language later in
§ 602.20(h) indicating that the agency
has the authority to determine the
circumstances for when such restoration
of accreditation is ‘‘appropriate.’’ In
turn, the commenter asserts that the
notion that an agency may determine
the circumstances for when restoring
accreditation is appropriate does not
align with the phrase ‘‘including if
required by an applicable judicial
decision.’’
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenter. We believe § 602.20(h)
clearly requires a restoration of
accreditation policy that must, at a
minimum, include the process for

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68656

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

restoring accreditation when required to
do so by an applicable judicial decision.
An accrediting agency is not prevented
from restoring accreditation in
circumstances other than judicial
orders, but can include any
circumstances that it determines are
appropriate for a restoration of
accreditation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that provisions under § 602.18(d) and
§ 602.20(i) are duplicative and
inconsistent. The commenter stated that
the two substantially overlapping
provisions permit an agency to allow an
institution to remain out of compliance
for a period not to exceed three years.
Discussion: We believe the
commenter has misinterpreted the
regulations. There is no § 602.18(d) in
the new regulations. Items under
§ 602.18(d) have been moved and
amended under § 602.20(i).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that the compliance timeline under
§ 602.20(a)(2) may be too long for some
programs and too rigid for all. One
commenter stated that an agency that
continues to certify quality while an
institution spends four years out of
compliance with that agency’s own
standards is not acting as a reliable
authority, and students continue to
enroll and borrow throughout. The
commenter recommended to make the
cap a ceiling rather than a default. The
commenter further requested that the
Department require that any timeline
beyond one year be accompanied by a
public statement of the agency’s
reasons, intermediate checkpoints with
defined consequences for missing them,
and notice to enrolled students that the
institution is operating under a
compliance plan.
Discussion: These provisions are
current regulations, and the Department
has not proposed changing them in the
proposed rule or the final rule.
Agencies, institutions, and programs
have been operating under these rules
prior to the new regulations; therefore,
the Department sees no reason to update
them at this time.
Changes: None.
Comments: Referring to the preamble
explanation for the amendments to
§ 602.20(a)(4), one commenter stated
that the final rule should adopt the same
functional approach to transparency.
Whether an agency calls a status a
warning, show cause, probation, special
report, heightened monitoring, followup report, compliance report, or another
term should not determine whether the
institution receives a specific written
explanation. The trigger should be the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

substance of the action: when an agency
has identified an institution-specific
compliance concern and, as a result,
imposes a special reporting
requirement, corrective-action
requirement, heightened status, or other
out-of-cycle obligation, the institution
should receive the material basis and
requirements in writing.
Discussion: Because the commenter
did not provide a specific provision(s)
to amend, the Department cannot
respond thoroughly to the request. We
believe that these rules already require
an agency to communicate noncompliance with any standard to
accredited institutions or programs in
writing, no matter the term or status
used by the agency, in § 602.20(a).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that changes would undermine efforts to
resolve disputes between institutions
and accrediting agencies through
arbitration. Such mechanisms and
procedures can provide institutions and
agencies with a more efficient and less
costly means of resolving disputes while
preserving appropriate legal and
procedural protections. One commenter
stated that Federal regulations should
not inadvertently undermine those
mechanisms in favor of protracted
administrative proceedings or litigation.
To the extent institutions and agencies
have established lawful processes for
resolving disputes efficiently and fairly,
the Department should preserve, and
even encourage, the use of those
processes to reach a binding outcome.
Another commenter urged the
Department to utilize binding
arbitration as an available means of
resolving accreditation disputes and to
reconsider changes to the existing due
process framework that are unnecessary
to protect institutions and may
ultimately make those protections less
effective. Another commenter stated
that an accurate reading of both the
statute and the regulation in fact permits
accrediting agencies to require binding
arbitration prior to the initiation of any
other legal action.
One commenter provided alternative
language:
‘‘(e) All adverse actions taken under
this subpart are subject to the arbitration
requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1099b(e).
Nothing in this section prescribes
whether arbitration must be binding or
nonbinding, which is determined by the
agreement of the parties or applicable
law. Agency policies governing the
arbitration of disputes must: (1) Apply
to all final adverse actions, however, an
agency may require the institution or
program to first exhaust the agency’s
appeal process;’’.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Discussion: The Department refers the
commenters to the relevant discussion
in the NPRM, which states Section
496(e) of the HEA states that ‘‘The
Secretary may not recognize the
accreditation of any institution of higher
education unless the institution of
higher education agrees to submit any
dispute involving the final denial,
withdrawal, or termination of
accreditation to initial arbitration prior
to any other legal action.’’ Based on the
statute, arbitration cannot be binding,
because the statute only refers to
‘‘initial’’ arbitration and provides that
the institution may still instigate ‘‘any
other legal action’’ after arbitration. A
binding arbitration agreement would
prevent the institution from pursuing
any other legal action. However, nothing
in the statute or these regulations
prevents an institution and agency from
mutually agreeing to binding arbitration
to resolve a lingering dispute later in the
process, after such a dispute has arisen.
Indeed, nothing in the statute gives the
Department the authority to impose
requirements for arbitration agreements
other than that which is entered into
when the institution is first accredited.
The Department also released guidance
in November 2023 that clarified that
arbitration must be initial and nonbinding. If an accrediting agency and
institution choose to enter into binding
arbitration after a dispute arises, then
that is permissible because both parties
come to an agreement as opposed to an
agency requiring binding arbitration as
a requirement to seek or maintain
accreditation.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
requested clarification of the provision
under § 602.20 (h). One commenter
stated that there is distinct difference
between retroactive accreditation and
restoration or reinstatement of
accreditation, which are not co-terminus
actions. These terms are not defined in
the regulations, but they may need to be
defined in regulation, especially as
different agencies and the Department
have varied over the past several years
in their explanation of these terms and
the regulatory implications thereof.
Another commenter stated that the
Department needs to clarify if an agency
must have a policy for restoration of
accreditation (including retroactively).
Discussion: The Department agrees
that an agency must have a policy for
restoration of accreditation, which
could be retroactive. The term
retroactive accreditation has appeared
in 34 CFR part 602 since 2019 under
§ 602.18(a)(7) without confusion. The
Department declines to prescribe a
definition to the terms because we

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

believe they are widely understood and
common terms. If the Department
recognizes a need in the future to
provide further guidance on the terms,
we may offer subregulatory guidance as
necessary to inform implementation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommends that any restoration of
accreditation following arbitration or
litigation be prospective and that the
agency’s record of the adverse action
and its resolution remain publicly
available under Sec. 602.26(f). The
commenter stated that retroactive
restoration rewrites history: it treats the
period during which an institution
operated under a final adverse action as
though the action never occurred,
erasing information that students who
enrolled during that period relied on in
making enrollment and borrowing
decisions. It also weakens the deterrent
value of adverse action itself, since an
institution that expects any sanction to
be retroactively expunged through
arbitration has less reason to remediate
promptly and more reason to litigate.
Prospective restoration fully protects an
institution that prevails on the merits
going forward, while preserving an
accurate public record of what the
accrediting agency found, when, and
how the dispute was resolved.
Discussion: In response to this
comment, the Department notes that an
agency may have such a policy if it
chooses unless the resolution of a
judicial decision requires the agency to
retroactively restore accreditation and
expunge the record of an adverse action
against the institution. The Department
is not dictating the elements of the
restoration policy; we are providing
agencies with flexibility to establish
their own requirements. With this in
mind, the agency must have such a
policy and apply it consistently to all
accredited institutions and programs.
Changes: None.
§ 602.21 Review of Standards
Comments: A few commenters were
concerned that deleting current
§ 602.21(b)–(d) would remove the more
concrete safeguards that give the review
requirements meaning such as
meaningful opportunity for input,
notice of proposed standards changes,
opportunity to comment, and
consideration of timely comments. One
commenter had several
recommendations: (1) include language
that states ‘‘The agency must maintain
a comprehensive systematic program of
review that occurs at regular intervals,
involves all relevant constituencies,
including students, and affords each
relevant constituency a meaningful

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

opportunity to provide input into the
review’’; and (2) clarify that ‘‘relevant
constituencies’’ may include affected
governmental and judicial entities.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion. The Department
is removing prescriptive language that
does not appear in statute while
maintaining a requirement under
§ 602.21(a) that the review involve ‘‘all
relevant constituencies.’’ The
Department declines to specify the
relevant constituencies, with the
exception of students, to afford agencies
autonomy and the ability to innovate.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
believed that the reference to ‘‘return on
investment’’ in the NPRM preamble
discussion about the amendments to
§ 602.21 would require agencies to
conduct a formal ‘‘return on
investment’’ analysis, longitudinal
study, financial analysis, or develop
expensive surveys to provide to
stakeholders regarding its standards.
The full excerpt states: ‘‘An ineffective
and outdated accrediting agency is not
a good use of taxpayer dollars via the
institutions or programs it accredits and
may leave students without a good
return on investment and with
insurmountable student loan debt that
they may struggle to repay debt.’’
Discussion: Preamble language is not
enforceable; it solely explains the
regulatory text in plain language. The
regulations under § 602.21 are
deregulatory in nature, not prescriptive
of any process. We have removed
§ 602.21(b)-(d) to eliminate burdensome
regulations that are not statutorily
required.
Additionally, while agencies must
review standards at regular intervals,
nothing in the regulatory text requires a
standardized ‘‘return on investment’’
analysis. Agencies will note the
Department has not defined the only
substantive addition to § 602.21, which
is ‘‘that occurs at regular intervals,’’
because we allow agencies the
flexibility to determine the interval for
the review of their own standards.
Changes: None.
§ 602.22 Substantive Changes and
Other Reporting Requirements
Comments: Several commenters
expressed agreement with the
Department’s intent to encourage
responsible innovation and narrow the
substantive change reporting
requirements when the changes do not
present meaningful risks to educational
quality. These commenters
acknowledged the reduced
administrative overhead and lead times
required. Commenters stressed the need

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68657

for clear definitions, common data
standards usage where possible, clear
guidance, adequate technical assistance,
and a reasonable transition period to
implement the proposed changes.
Discussion: We thank and appreciate
the commenters’ support of this
provision.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued
for the inclusion of direct assessment
programs in the exemption of applying
for accrediting agency approval, opining
that an institution that has successfully
obtained approval for two direct
assessment programs and demonstrated
a sound competency-definition and
mastery-assessment methodology has
proven the capability the prior-approval
requirement exists to test. The
commenter emphasized requiring
approval of subsequent direct
assessment programs is redundant and
unnecessary.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
proposal in the commenter’s request.
Due to the requirements of
§ 668.10(b)(2)(vi), the agency’s
definition of substantive change must
continue to include the addition of each
direct assessment program. Specifically,
§ 668.10(b)(2)(vi) requires an agency to
evaluate an institution’s offering of
direct assessment program(s), include
the program(s) in the institution’s grant
of accreditation, and provide approval
documentation indicating agreement
with the institution’s methodology for
determining the direct assessment
program’s equivalence in terms of credit
or clock hours to obtain the
Department’s approval for participation
in the title IV, HEA programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter
offered general support for the proposed
changes to § 602.22 but emphasized that
notifications can still be burdensome
and requested that the Department
clarify what the process of notification
means both from the institution to the
accrediting agency and then the agency
to the Department.
Discussion: We do not expect
additional burden for notifications
required by this section under the final
rule. The institution should follow the
process determined by the agency for
notifying applicable substantive
changes. The agency should provide any
required notifications to the
Department—as it does for any other
notification of a required decision or
action—via the Database of Accredited
Postsecondary Institutions and
Programs (DAPIP).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
recommended the Department further

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68658

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

clarify the ability of agencies to define
substantive changes beyond the
specified list.
Discussion: The final rule does not
limit an accrediting agency’s ability to
specify additional changes that it
determines are substantive. The
substantive changes noted by the
Department are the minimum
expectations for review.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter
expressed mixed support for § 602.22
but recommended requiring the
accrediting agency to monitor an
institution for a defined period
following a change of control and track
key aspects, and to report what it finds
through the recognition process. The
commenter further recommended that
regarding additional locations, the
Department add a growth-rate trigger, so
the prior-approval shortcut option is
unavailable to an institution whose
headcount enrollment or number of
locations has increased beyond a
specified threshold over the preceding
two years. The commenter also
recommended that the Department
clarify that this option removes prior
approval only and would not displace
site-visit or branch-campus obligations.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for several
changes but disagree with the
commenter’s suggestions for changes.
We do not believe it is necessary for an
accrediting agency to monitor an
institution for a specific period of time
following every change in control,
although an accrediting agency could
choose to do this of its own volition. We
also do not believe that a growth-rate
trigger is appropriate in all cases and
decline to limit an accrediting agency’s
discretion to determine when an
institution’s growth rate has become
problematic.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter agreed
with the removal of ‘‘high-impact, highrisk changes’’ in the agency’s definition
of substantive change.
Discussion: The Department intends
to reduce burden on both institutions
and agencies. The final rule provides a
definition of substantive change that
applies to a more precise set of
situations, arrives at a better balance of
needed oversight, and returns some
degree of deference to the agencies to
make the decisions on what the
substantive changes are and how they
are processed.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter
stressed that eliminating prescriptive
requirements should not inadvertently
eliminate appropriate oversight of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

changes that may affect institutional
capacity, educational quality, student
support, or reduce oversight in areas
that may increase the potential of
financial risk.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with this comment. However, we
maintain that some requirements and
processes are overly prescriptive and
not based on statute. The final rule
eliminates some burdensome and
complex regulations yet retains the
statutory requirement for appropriate
oversight of changes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter disagreed
with these changes because the items
being removed are most closely
associated with program quality
deterioration.
Discussion: The intent of the final rule
is to be less prescriptive in defining
when and what institutions and
agencies must do in reporting and
reviewing changes. Accrediting agencies
maintain the discretion to identify cases
when the quality of an institution’s
academic programs is deteriorating, and
do not need the Department to specify
the circumstances in which every
agency applies additional scrutiny. We
expect accrediting agencies to maintain
reasonable procedures to identify
situations in which the quality of an
institution’s academic programs is
declining and take appropriate action.
Changes: None.
§ 602.23 Operating Procedures All
Agencies Must Have
Comments: One commenter
supported the amendments to paragraph
§ 602.23(c) requiring that an accrediting
agency review complaints against itself
in a timely, fair, equitable, and unbiased
manner, take appropriate follow-up
action, and document complaints and
actions taken. The commenter
recommended requiring every
recognized accrediting agency maintain
a clearly identifiable public procedure
for complaints against the agency itself
and a record showing the date received,
issue raised, classification, reviewing
body, conflict-of-interest safeguards,
disposition, follow-up action, and date
resolved.
Discussion: The Department does not
believe edits are necessary to § 602.23(c)
as the additional requirements are too
prescriptive and would add
unnecessarily to regulatory burden on
agencies. We believe that the
amendments to this section already
address the commenter’s concern about
the documentation of complaints
received against the agency.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comments: One commenter
recommended that § 602.23(c)(1) be
clarified so that, where a complaint’s
stated evidence includes institutional
documents, policies, or records rather
than solely a personal narrative, and the
complainant does not seek an
individual remedy, the agency’s scope
determination address whether the
complaint identifies a potential
institutional practice, separate from the
fact that the complainant experienced
that practice personally. The commenter
further recommended that the
Department clarify whether an agency’s
obligation under § 602.23(c)(1) to
provide the institution a sufficient
opportunity to respond applies only
once a complaint has passed an agency’s
own scope screening, or whether that
opportunity should also inform the
screening determination itself when
institutional records are at issue.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s recommendation. We
believe that the complaint process
regulations are sufficiently robust. If the
Department were to add more specific
text, it would result in confusing
regulatory language and overly rigid
requirements that would constrain the
process rather than make it more
efficient.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that whenever a recognized accrediting
agency modifies a material policy
within a defined period after receiving
a complaint concerning that policy, it
should preserve and publish the old
version, the new version, the date, the
stated rationale, whether the change
applies prospectively or retrospectively,
whether the complaint influenced the
change, number of program complaints,
number of complaints against the
agency, issues raised, how many were
screened out, average resolution time,
number substantial, and number
involving several areas (ex. conflicts,
retaliation, etc.).
Discussion: The commenter did not
specify which paragraph under § 602.23
is the subject of the comment. We
believe that the complaint process
outlined under § 602.23(c) is sufficiently
robust and decline to make any further
changes in the final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that some agencies have categorically
refused third-party complaint
submissions. The commenter stated that
§ 602.23(c)(1) should clarify that an
agency may not refuse to review a
complaint solely because it was
submitted by a third party. At
minimum, an agency should accept a
complaint submitted by counsel or an

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
advocacy organization on behalf of an
affected student or faculty member with
that individual’s authorization. And
where a third party presents credible
evidence of systemic noncompliance
with an accreditation standard, the
identity of the complainant should not
immunize the underlying conduct from
review. Finally, the commenter stated
that § 602.23(l) should likewise include
a structured means for receiving such
information. Nothing requires an
accrediting agency to become a generalpurpose tribunal for every campus
controversy.
Discussion: The Department does not
believe that additional clarifying
language is necessary. If an entity
submits a complaint to an agency and
does not believe that it has been
sufficiently vetted, then the entity can
submit a complaint to the Department
for review of the agency’s response to
[email protected] or call 202–
453–7615. The commenters may also
attend a NACIQI meeting and provide
public comment regarding an
accrediting agency. The Department
encourages the commenters to consult
the Federal Register and the NACIQI
website for announcements and
information regarding upcoming
meetings and opportunities for public
comment.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
removing the newly revised language in
§ 602.23(d) stating that ‘‘[t]he agency
must require its accredited institutions
or programs to publicly disclose any
action by the agency that begins the
enforcement timeline in § 602.20(a) or
(b).’’ The commenter asserts that this
language is not necessary because it is
redundant with language in § 602.26(e).
Discussion: We disagree and decline
to accept the commenter’s suggestion.
This language at § 602.23(d) requires the
public disclosure of any action by the
agency that begins the enforcement
timeline in § 602.20(a) or (b) which goes
beyond the public disclosure
requirements at § 602.26(e). We believe
the additional public disclosure when
an agency finds—at any time—that an
institution or program is not in
compliance with any standard is
important for the transparency of agency
actions and institutional or
programmatic compliance with
standards.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the expanded disclosure
requirements proposed in § 602.23(d)
should clearly distinguish preliminary
or remediable findings of
noncompliance from final adverse
actions so that students and the public

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

receive timely and accurate information
without creating a misleading
impression about an institution’s
accreditation status.
Discussion: An agency can instruct
institutions or programs how to
distinguish between a preliminary and
remediable finding of noncompliance
from adverse actions in its requirements
for public disclosure under § 602.23(d).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the proposed § 602.23(d) states that
an agency ‘‘must require’’ institutions to
publicly disclose any action by the
agency that begins the enforcement
timeline in § 602.20(a) or (b). The
sentence that follows that language
refers to an institution that ‘‘elects to
make a public disclosure,’’ suggesting
the disclosure is voluntary. The
commenter recommends that the
Department resolve the mandatory
versus elective inconsistency.
Discussion: The public disclosure is
mandatory for any action by the agency
that begins the enforcement timeline in
§ 602.20(a) or (b) for an institution or
program and the agency must ensure
that the disclosure is accurate. Public
disclosure of an institution’s or
program’s accredited status otherwise is
optional, but if an institution or program
does disclose that status, the agency
must ensure that it is an accurate
disclosure.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter opposed
changing ‘‘degrees’’ to ‘‘credentials’’
under § 602.23(f). The commenter stated
that the omission of the term degree
carries the potential to suggest to
undergraduates that ‘‘credentials’’ and
‘‘degrees’’ are the same when earning a
degree can have a significant impact on
a student’s future that mere credit
accumulation cannot.
Discussion: The Department does not
share the commenter’s concern. We
believe the change will be welcomed
and as described in the NPRM, it will
help confirm to employers that
credentials from preaccredited
institutions or programs carry the same
validity and legitimacy as credentials
from accredited institutions or
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that requiring public disclosure of any
agency action that begins the
enforcement timeline could obscure the
distinction between routine or readily
correctable findings and serious
concerns about quality, integrity, or
student protection. The commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify what ‘‘any action’’ encompasses
and establish a materiality threshold for

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68659

mandatory disclosure. When disclosure
is required, public notices should
clearly identify the nature and current
status of the matter, including whether
it has been corrected or resolved, so
students and the public receive
information proportionate to the
underlying risk.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s suggestion. The
Department believes full transparency is
paramount and adding further
conditions to the public disclosure of
agency actions would result in
confusing rules for agencies and
inconsistent application of the
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
supported the provision under
§ 602.23(h). One commenter stated that
race-based metrics, including diversity,
equity and inclusion (DEI) should end.
Another commenter stated that
accreditation standards should promote
educational quality, accountability, and
student success without compelling
unlawful differential treatment or
prohibited preferences.
Discussion: As noted in the NPRM,
these regulations, in part, seek to
implement E.O. 14279. A part of that
order stated ‘‘Some accreditors make the
adoption of unlawfully discriminatory
practices a formal standard of
accreditation, and therefore a condition
of accessing Federal aid, through
‘‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’’ or
‘‘DEI’’-based standards of accreditation
that require institutions to ‘‘share results
on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
in the context of their mission by
considering . . . demographics . . . and
resource allocation.’’ Accrediting
agencies have also abused their
governance standards to intrude on
State and local authority.’’
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters
opposed the provision under § 602.23(h)
that states an agency must not have
policies that require institutions or
programs to violate any Federal or State
law for the following reasons:
• Agencies are not civil right laws
experts or law enforcement agencies.
Commenters believe that this
requirement is Federal overreach and
could lead to constitutional issues such
as agencies infringing on the free speech
of institutions, programs, and students.
• Social cultural background should
be considered in higher education
policies because students from wealthy
families have more opportunities to
engage in extracurricular activities and
influential networks than a student from
a family with less means.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68660

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

• Institutions are already bound by
anti-discrimination laws. Making
agencies independently responsible for
policing it, amid the administration’s
public stance against diversity, equity,
and inclusion (DEI), will predictably
lead institutions to eliminate lawful
programs—including minority pipeline
programs in medicine, nursing, and
public health that diversify the health
workforce—simply to avoid regulatory
risk.
• The regulations require agencies to
ensure institutional compliance with
applicable Federal and State laws.
Accrediting agencies are educational
quality reviewers, not courts, regulators,
or law enforcement bodies. Legal
compliance matters are already
reviewed and adjudicated by Federal
agencies, State agencies, courts, and
other regulatory authorities. Expanding
agency responsibilities into broad legal
compliance oversight risks increasing
costs, creating inconsistent findings,
and diverting attention from educational
quality.
• The language creates significant
uncertainty for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
other institutions attempting to comply
with evolving Federal and State civilrights requirements.
• Institutions will be confused about
how to accredit institutions that have
legal diversity, equity and inclusion
aims as part of their institutional
missions. For example, legally
permitted targeted initiatives, including
programs serving veterans, TRIO
participants, and other populations
authorized or protected under Federal
or State law, lawful sex-specific
scholarships or programs, on-campus
voluntary student affinity groups.
• The rule ignores that institutions
offer preferential admission for issues
unrelated to merit, such as admission of
student athletes at elite sporting
institutions.
Commenters made several
suggestions:
• Limit accrediting agency review to
legal matters directly related to
educational quality, institutional
integrity, and student protection rather
than broad legal compliance oversight.
• Limit the role of the accrediting
agencies to determining whether an
institution maintains appropriate
policies and responds responsibly to
final findings issued by a court or
governmental authority with
jurisdiction.
• Clarify that accrediting agencies
and institutions may continue to collect
and analyze demographic data; conduct
recruitment and outreach efforts focused
on rural, low income, first-generation,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

and underserved communities; consider
applicants’ individual experiences
consistent with applicable law; and
deliver evidence-based instruction
necessary to prepare students to care for
diverse patient populations.
• Specify that institutions retain
authority over employment, personnel,
and research misconduct decisions in
compliance with applicable Federal and
State law and any existing collective
bargaining agreements.
Discussion: The provision does not
eliminate lawful admission or hiring
practices, but instead it prohibits illegal
diversity, equity, and inclusion
requirements. The Trump
Administration has sought to eliminate
illegal diversity, equity and inclusion
requirements throughout the Federal
government and its programs, as
demonstrated in E.O.s 14151 11 and
14398.12 Further, E.O. 14279 states that
‘‘the Secretary of Education shall, as
appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, hold accountable,
including through denial, monitoring,
suspension, or termination of
accreditation recognition, accrediting
agencies who fail to meet the applicable
recognition criteria or otherwise violate
Federal law, including by requiring
institutions seeking accreditation to
engage in unlawful discrimination in
accreditation-related activity under the
guise of ‘‘diversity, equity, and
inclusion’’ initiatives.’’
These regulations do not dictate an
institution’s admission process. The
Department is aware that many
institutions have holistic application
processes. Applications contain essays,
statements, questions about
extracurricular activity and awards, etc.
Institutions may continue to collect and
analyze demographic data and consider
applicants’ individual experiences
consistent with applicable law.
However, they cannot have policies that
use race, color, or national origin as
criteria for admissions, set percentage
targets based on race, color, national
origin, or use other information as
proxies for race, color, or national
origin.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should clarify that
‘‘Federal or State law’’ includes the
exemptions, exceptions, defenses, and
11 Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI
Programs and Preferencing—https://
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/
ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-deiprograms-and-preferencing/.
12 Address DEI Discrimination by Federal
Contractors—https://www.whitehouse.gov/
presidential-actions/2026/03/addressing-deidiscrimination-by-Federal-contractors/.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

constitutional protections that are part
of those laws. The commenter
recommended to add the following
language to § 602.23(h)—‘‘Nothing in
this part shall be construed to allow an
accrediting agency to treat as unlawful
any policy, practice, or decision
permitted by an applicable statutory or
constitutional exemption, exception,
defense, or protection, including, but
not limited to, the religious exemption
in 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3).’’
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenter’s suggestion. We believe the
regulatory text already accounts for
exemptions, exceptions, defenses, and
constitutional protections that are a part
of Federal and State law. We do not
intend to create an exhaustive list of
each statute that must be considered
because all relevant statutes must be
considered by an agency in its
standards, policies, and procedures.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that an agency is currently violating
regulations proposed under § 602.23
insofar that the agency has policies
related to nondiscrimination.
Discussion: While the commenter did
not provide the specific proposed
paragraph the agency is accused of
violating, the Department assumes the
commenter is referencing § 602.23(h).
Note that the regulations are effective on
July 1, 2027, and most provisions will
not be enforced until then. However, if
the commenter believes that a Federal or
State law is currently being violated, the
commenter can file a complaint with the
specific agency or the Department for
further investigation.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the requirement under § 602.23(i)
related to antitrust internal controls
should be clarified so that ordinary peer
review is not chilled. The commenter
requested that the Department clarify
that the development and application of
published quality standards through a
peer review process is not itself
‘‘coordination’’ within the meaning of
the requirements under § 602.23(i) and
should identify the conduct it actually
intends to reach.
Discussion: Conducting peer reviews
does not inherently violate antitrust
laws, but agencies may wish to consult
with an attorney(s) to ensure their
review process does not violate antitrust
laws. The Department cannot state
definitively in the preamble that all peer
review processes are exempt from
§ 602.13 and § 602.23(i).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that under § 602.23(i) the Department
should require complainants to refer all

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
antitrust concerns about agencies to the
Federal Trade Commission or the
Department of Justice.
Discussion: The Department noted in
the NPRM—and repeats here—that it is
not the enforcer of antitrust law. As
such, the Department may refer any
potentially anticompetitive conduct to
the federal antitrust enforcement
agencies, but the Department does not
need to make changes to the regulations
herein to make such referrals.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
supported the provisions under
§ 602.23(j). One commenter expressed
strong support for the Department’s
recognition of State authority over
public institutions.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters had
concerns with § 602.23(j). The main
concern from commenters was that
these provisions could limit the ability
of accrediting bodies to respond when
State action interferes with academic
freedom, institutional governance,
curriculum, or established professional
and educational standards. One
commenter stated that an accrediting
agency cannot simultaneously be
instructed to verify an institution’s
constitutional compliance and be barred
from reviewing the governance
decisions through which that
compliance is or is not maintained.
One commenter stated that it is
unclear in § 602.23(j) what is included
within the scope of ‘‘aspects of
institutional governance of public
institutions that are established by State
law,’’ beyond the issue of ‘‘appointment
of institutional directors or officers by
elected or appointed State officials.’’
Another commenter stated that under
proposed § 602.23(j), the politically
motivated appointment of regents
established by State law would be
outside the accrediting agency’s review.
This is a threat to independent
accreditation, making it effectively a
rubber stamp of whatever States decide
to do—whether or not those actions
materially weaken the quality of
education for students at institutions
within those States. The commenter
asserted that the provision strips the
ability of accrediting agencies to
effectively enforce their standards in
any meaningful way.
One commenter recommended
revising § 602.23(j) to preserve
accrediting agencies’ ability to evaluate
governance matters relevant to
institutional quality, even where
particular governance structures are
established by State law. Another

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

commenter recommended revising
§ 602.23(j) to read: ‘‘The agency shall
not penalize or place on probation any
public or private nonprofit institution
for actions taken by its governing board
that fall within the board’s statutory,
charter, or legal authority’’ or ‘‘The
agency must only review aspects of
institutional governance of public
institutions to ensure their compliance
with State and Federal laws, including
the appointment of institutional
directors or officers by elected or
appointed State officials.’’
Another commenter stated that the
Department should clarify the
terminology in § 602.23(j) to expressly
reference typical public institution
governance bodies such as ‘‘boards of
trustees,’’ as it does in the preamble
language. The commenter indicated that
the regulations should also make clear
whether the provision protects only
governance structures and appointments
of institution or program leaders
prescribed by State law, or whether it
also protects decisions for which State
law assigns decision-making authority
to a public institution’s governing
board. The commenter requested that
the final text not prevent an agency from
reviewing a State law governance
decision when the review concerns
compliance with Federal law, the
institution’s own policies, or valid
academic and institutional quality
standards. The commenter also argued
that the regulations should not
authorize an agency to direct the
outcome of a governance decision that
State law reserves to the State or its
governing bodies.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenters’ assertions. The
Department’s intent is to ensure that an
agency’s standards do not supersede
State law. For example, if a State passes
a law that grants the Governor authority
to appoint an administrator to an
institution, then the agency may not
review any subsequent decision by the
Governor to make an appointment of the
specific administrator. The Department
intends this requirement to remain
broad. We decline to prescribe an
exhaustive list in regulation of the scope
of § 602.23(j). As issues arise, the
Department will work with agencies and
States to clarify guidance and resolve
issues.
We decline to add a reference to a
‘‘board of trustees’’ or specify that the
regulations prevent accrediting agencies
from reviewing decisions for which
State law assigns decision-making
authority to an institution’s governing
board because the list in regulation is
not exhaustive. The regulation states
that the agency must refrain from

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68661

reviewing aspects of institutional
governance of public institutions that
are established by State law,
‘‘including’’ any appointment to
institutional governance established by
State law; the Department does not
intend for that to be the only item that
cannot be reviewed.
The regulations under § 602.23(j) do
not prevent an accrediting agency from
reviewing concerns with an institution’s
compliance with Federal law or valid
academic and institutional quality
standards that are clearly under the
direct purview of the agency under the
law and regulations, even if those
standards might be impacted by the
policies of a State governance board.
The requirements under § 602.23(j) are
specifically intended to prevent
accrediting agencies from intervening in
governance matters that are under the
clear and rightful purview of the State.
Where there are governance matters that
could affect academic quality but
remain under the purview of the State,
the accrediting agency may act as an
advisor but not as the arbiter of the
institution’s policies.
Finally, we believe that § 602.23(h)
already addresses the requested
amendment related to State law
compliance with Federal law.
Changes: None.
Comments: In the preamble, the
Department explains that: ‘‘We propose
§ 602.23(j) to direct accrediting agencies
to refrain from interfering with
institutional governance decisions that
fall within the rightful purview of State
governments, boards of trustees, or
similar governing bodies, limiting their
role to advisory purposes only.’’ A few
commenters stated that the Department
should note what an agency’s ’advisory
only’ role permits and prohibits in
practice.
Discussion: An advisor cannot make a
final decision. An accrediting agency
can give professional advice regarding
matters that are clearly under the
purview of State governance; however,
it cannot interfere with a State
government’s statutory authority over
institutional governance.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if
the requirement under § 602.23(j)
applies to institutional, not specialized,
accrediting agencies.
Discussion: The provision under
§ 602.23(j) applies to all accrediting
agencies that are recognized by the
Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
removing § 602.23(k) because they
stated that it is confusing. The
commenter stated that the regulation

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68662

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

says ‘‘may’’ have a process for
accelerating an institution’s ability to
obtain accreditation status but then
dictates minimum requirements for this
optional process. The commenter
asserted that mandating the
requirements of a process that an agency
is not required to have at all discourages
an agency from having the process.
Discussion: We disagree with the
commenter’s suggestion and assertion.
The regulation provides flexibility to
agencies to offer an accelerated process
while establishing guardrails for
implementation when agencies choose
to do so. The Department has done this
in several places throughout the
regulations. For example, in the recent
regulations published on eligible
workforce programs under § 690.93(h),
the Department permitted governors to
enter into bilateral agreements and
subsequently set parameters for the
bilateral agreements.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated
that the Department should establish a
common set of minimum safeguards
that every recognized institutional
accrediting agency must apply when
reviewing an institution that changes or
adds accrediting agencies. One of these
commenters indicated that the
Department could add a new paragraph
to § 602.23(k) requiring the receiving
agency to apply, at a minimum, the
agency’s standards and procedures
concerning student achievement,
financial responsibility, consumer
protection, complaints, institutional
stability, teach-out planning, and
compliance with Federal and State law.
The commenter stated that the
Department should also add a new
monitoring requirement to § 602.23(k) or
§ 602.33 requiring heightened
monitoring for at least two years after
the change. The commenter asserted
that this requirement would not prohibit
legitimate institutional mobility or
require the Department to assign an
institution to a particular accrediting
agency.
A different commenter requested that
the Department state eligibility
exclusions in regulatory text. The
accelerated process should be
unavailable to any institution under
monitoring, probation, show-cause, or a
negative action; in or recently emerged
from a substantive change review; that
has changed accrediting agencies within
a defined lookback period; that is
provisionally certified; or that is
experiencing significant enrollment
growth within the meaning of 20 U.S.
Code § 1099b(c)(2).
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters. The regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

under § 600.11 are sufficiently rigorous
and clear. These regulations provide the
proper safeguards when an institution
chooses to change agencies or seek out
accreditation from multiple agencies.
The final rule at section 602.23(k)
reduces administrative burden when
switching between recognized
accrediting agencies, but still requires a
comprehensive review of the institution
by the agency against its standards.
The Department has also added
requirements for the application of
standards that require all agencies to
review institutions. Commenters will
note that agencies will need to have
stronger policies to evaluate student
outcomes. There are also the current
safeguards, for example, the Department
staff reports and NACIQI reviews of
agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
suggested removing § 602.23(l) because
the new requirements are redundant
given the existing requirements for
agencies in the regulations under
§ 602.23(b) and § 602.23(c). The
commenter also stated that there is a
typographical error in the amendatory
language under § 602.23(l).
A separate commenter stated that
numerous processes for complaints
already exist for students and
employees. For example, complainants
may file grievances, such as Title IX,
civil rights, and employment claims
with appropriate Federal agencies.
Accreditation should not create yet
another process, in addition to already
existing processes, for grievances. The
commenter stated that the proposal
creates a particular risk for religious
institutions. A student or employee who
disagrees with a doctrinal requirement,
chapel expectation, conduct standard,
hiring decision, student-life policy, or
other religiously based policy may
characterize the disagreement as an
accreditation concern. The agency may
then be drawn into a dispute about the
substance of a lawful religious policy
rather than the institution’s compliance
with an accreditation standard. The
commenter recommended that the
Department include due process
requirements. If information received
through the grievance process may be
used to support a finding of
noncompliance or another adverse
action, the institution should receive
notice of the substance of the
information and a fair opportunity to
respond.
Another commenter requested that
the Department clarify in § 602.23(l) that
communications received through that
provision do not constitute formal
complaints under § 602.23(c) unless

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

they satisfy the agency’s established
requirements for initiating a formal
complaint. The commenter stated that
nothing should prevent an agency from
treating information received through
§ 602.23(l) as a complaint when
appropriate under its policies.
Discussion: We decline the
commenters’ suggestion to remove or
substantively amend § 602.23(l). We
believe that § 602.23(l) is necessary to
explain the appropriate mechanisms for
how students, staff, or faculty of an
accredited institution or program
communicate concerns about the
agency’s standards directly to the
agency. We thank the commenter for
notifying us about the typographical
error under § 602.23(l) and have
corrected it, as described in the
‘‘Technical Corrections’’ section.
Regarding the concern about agencies
inappropriately applying the provision
to lawful policies of religious
institutions, the Department is clear in
the regulatory text that the concerns are
limited to ‘‘concerns related to the
agency’s accreditation standards or the
institution’s or program’s compliance
therewith,’’ not a religious policy of the
institution or program. The mechanism
in § 602.23(l) is simply about creating a
direct channel for the student, staff, and
faculty to voice concerns directly with
the agency. Under § 602.23(c),
institutions and programs have the right
to respond to formal complaints made
against the institution or program;
therefore, a formal due process
framework for § 602.23(l) is
unnecessary.
Finally, communications received
under § 602.23(l) do not constitute
formal complaints under § 602.23(c)
unless they satisfy the agency’s
established requirements for initiating a
formal complaint.
Changes: Please see the technical edit
for this particular item under the
‘‘Technical Corrections’’ section.
Comments: Under § 602.23(l), one
commenter recommended that the
Department require randomized panels
or independently administered surveys
as a floor, with registration available as
a supplement rather than a substitute.
The commenter recommended that the
Department delete or define
‘‘manageable in volume,’’ state that
participation limits may not operate to
exclude students who have raised
concerns, require the channel to operate
year-round rather than only during a
site visit, and require agencies to report
the volume and disposition of concerns
received. The commenter suggested that
the Department should also state plainly
in the final rule that the student and
veteran negotiators, who represent this

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
provision’s intended beneficiaries,
abstained rather than affirmed the text.
Discussion: We decline the
recommendation; we believe that the
Department’s regulations are sufficiently
rigorous. The commenter will note that
these regulations do not currently exist
and the Department’s proposal already
represented heightened consumer
protections, safeguards, and guardrails.
Per the protocols for the rulemaking
session, abstaining does not equal
disagreement. The Department achieved
consensus on the regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that an accrediting agency whose
standards are incorporated into Federal
employment and program requirements
is not merely a private association
petitioning its government. The
commenter stated that the agency is
exercising delegated gatekeeping
authority, and the Department should
treat conduct that expands or
entrenches that authority as conduct
within the scope. The commenter
requested that the Department add a
new § 602.23(m) that reads: ‘‘The agency
must not oppose the recognition of
equivalent qualifications for graduates
of programs accredited by another
agency in any Federal or State
employment, licensure, certification, or
reimbursement requirement that names
the agency.’’
Discussion: We decline to add the
provision as requested. The Department
is concerned about unintended
consequences that may arise from
adding this broad language to the
regulations. There could be legitimate
reasons for an accrediting agency to
oppose recognition of a separate but
equivalent qualification, and the blanket
prohibition described by the commenter
would foreclose those opportunities.
Changes: None
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department should require
programmatic accrediting agencies to
undergo independent legal and
economic audits under § 602.14,
§ 602.15 and § 602.23 that are published
publicly.
Discussion: The commenter did not
specify the exact location in the
regulations for the recommendation, so
we will address the comment under
§ 602.23. We do not believe the
Department has the authority to require
agencies to go through these types of
audits. We also believe that there are
Federal and State requirements outside
of Department of Education rules which
agencies operate under, such as
financial laws enforced by the Internal
Revenue Service or civil rights laws
enforced by the Department of Justice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Changes: None.
§ 602.24 Additional Procedures
Certain Institutional Agencies Must
Have
Teach-Out Plans and Agreements, and
Closed Institutions
Comments: Several commenters
argued that if an institution is on
provisional certification, that does not
imply that they are at risk of closure.
Commenters believed that institutions
that undergo routine change-inownership reviews, operational or
compliance issues, or are placed on
provisional certification during
Heightened Cash Monitoring do not
indicate any real risk of closure and
should be exempted from the teach-out
requirements in § 602.24(c).
Commenters urged the Department to
only require teach-out plans when
appropriate and that such requirements
be tied directly to demonstrated
institutional risk rather than being
automatically triggered by broad status
classifications like provisional
certification. Commenters believed
linking teach-out obligations to financial
or operational risk would ensure that
the requirement serves its intended
purpose—protecting students from
abrupt closures. One commenter noted
that the changes in § 602.24(c)(1)(iii)
will require large public institutions to
identify teach-out partners across
numerous programs, and the mandated
student communications will create
confusion by implying closure risks that
do not exist. The commenter
recommended maintaining the current
language in § 602.24(c)(1)(iii), which
requires a teach-out plan for a defined
subset of institutions on provisional
certification, rather than for every
institution on provisional certification.
Another commenter suggested
revising § 602.24(c)(1)(iii) to read: ‘‘The
Secretary changes an institution’s
participation in the title IV, HEA
programs from full certification to
provisional certification based on
circumstances that present a material
risk to the institution’s continued
operation or its ability to provide
instruction to enrolled students.’’ A
different commenter raised concerns
about financial protection requirements,
such as letters of credit, when an
institution cannot secure a teach-out
agreement. The commenter warned that
these requirements will inadvertently
create or worsen financial distress
because letters of credit can be costly
and can significantly constrain an
institution’s liquidity.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates commenters’ suggestions to

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68663

maintain the current language in
§ 602.24(c)(1)(iii) or revise the language,
but we will not be adopting the
suggestions. Provisional certification is,
by definition, a status associated with
elevated oversight and potential risk,
whether financial, administrative, or
related to consumer protection. The
Department is strengthening early
warning systems to ensure that students
are protected when institutions
encounter operational or financial
challenges that may impair their ability
to continue offering educational
programs. In many cases, indicators that
lead to provisional certification come
before more significant problems.
Requiring institutions in provisional
status to develop a teach-out plan
ensures that, if circumstances worsen,
students will not face abrupt disruption
or loss of educational continuity. The
Department also emphasizes that a
teach-out plan is a planning tool, not a
presumption of closure, and an overall
best practice to mitigate lost educational
opportunities when unforeseen events
or circumstances occur. Teach-out plans
can be scaled appropriately to the
institution’s structure and
circumstances, and institutions retain
discretion to design plans that reflect
their program offerings, size, and
stability.
With respect to financial protection
requirements such as letters of credit,
the Department acknowledges the
commenter’s concern that these
measures can be costly. Nonetheless,
financial protection plays a critical role
when an institution cannot secure a
teach-out agreement, particularly in
situations where operational or financial
deterioration creates heightened student
risk. These safeguards help ensure that
resources will be available to support
students if closure occurs. Moreover,
institutions unable to secure a teach-out
agreement must document the reasons
for this difficulty, and the Department
may require financial protection only
when necessary to secure student
continuity in the event of institutional
disruption.
The Department agrees that regulatory
obligations must be carefully calibrated
to risk, and the final rule incorporates
several mechanisms to strengthen early
warning systems and align requirements
with the conditions institutions face. At
the same time, the Department declines
to limit teach-out or financial protection
requirements solely to instances of
demonstrated closure risk because doing
so could delay safeguards until risks
become acute which may compromise
student protections.
Changes: None.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68664

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Comments: Several commenters are
concerned about the 30-day requirement
for institutions to submit teach-out
plans or teach-out agreements under
§§ 602.24(c)(1) and (c)(3). One
commenter suggested extending the 30day timeline for submission of a teachout plan and/or teach-out agreement(s)
to at least 60 days. Another commenter
argued that large, multi-campus
institutions cannot produce
comprehensive, high-quality teach-out
plans within 30 days, especially when
those plans must account for every
educational program and site. The
commenter cautioned that requiring
rushed plans risks poor quality
submissions that fail to adequately
protect students and recommended
applying the same flexibility currently
afforded under § 602.24(c)(3) to
§ 602.24(c)(1). In addition, the
commenter recommended the
Department be required to notify
accrediting agencies immediately when
it places an institution on provisional
certification or takes other teach-out
triggering actions listed in
§§ 602.24(c)(1) and (c)(2). A different
commenter requested that the
Department clarify that the 30-day
timeline proposed in § 602.24(c)(1) can
be shortened when circumstances
warrant quicker action.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the commenters’ concern
regarding the 30-day requirement for
institutions to submit teach-out plans or
teach-out agreements under
§§ 602.24(c)(1) and (c)(3), but we will
maintain the proposed language. The
30-day timeline reflects the
Department’s commitment to early and
proactive intervention when institutions
encounter circumstances such as a
change from full to provisional
certification. As stated before,
provisional certification signals
heightened oversight, and institutions
will retain discretion to tailor the plan
to their size, academic structure, and
operations. Nothing in the regulation
precludes an accrediting agency from
requiring a teach-out plan at regular
intervals, such as at each renewal of
accreditation review, or at other points,
which would relieve the 30-day
timeline obligation, and agencies retain
the discretion to do so.
Regarding the commenter’s
recommendation that the Department
notify accrediting agencies right away
when an institution gets provisional
certification or faces other teach-out
actions, the Department is committed to
improving communication with
accrediting agencies. However, we will
not add new rules requiring immediate
notification. In addition, the Department

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

agrees with the commenter’s statement
that there may be instances where a
more expedited response is necessary to
protect students or to ensure the
integrity of the accreditation and
oversight processes. The 30-day period
in § 602.24(c)(1) represents the
maximum time allotted for agencies to
take the required action. Nothing in the
regulation precludes an accrediting
agency from acting sooner when
circumstances justify a shorter
timeframe, and agencies retain the
discretion to do so.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
recommended requiring teach-out plans
(not just agreements) whenever statutory
triggers occur, adopting a ‘‘reasonably
similar program’’ standard, and
prohibiting an institution from using its
own branch campus as its sole teach-out
partner. The commenters argued that
research shows that records-retention
and teach-out policies significantly
increase the likelihood of post-closure
reenrollment, especially when both are
in place. One commenter suggested
adding the following to § 602.24(c): ‘‘A
teach-out plan must identify a teach-out
opportunity in a program reasonably
similar in content, structure, and
scheduling to the program in which the
student is enrolled, and may not rely
solely on an additional location or
branch campus of the closing
institution.’’
Discussion: Although the Department
appreciates the commenter’s suggested
additions, the Department believes the
final regulatory text strikes an
appropriate balance by enhancing
protections for students, improving
transparency, and strengthening
continuity measures without imposing
unnecessary rigidity. The Department
emphasizes that the final rule requires
accrediting agencies to ensure
institutions include record-retention
plans, maintain transcript access, and
identify comparable program pathways
in teach-out plans and agreements.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
explained that once an institution loses
accreditation, whether through adverse
action or voluntary resignation, the
accrediting agency no longer has any
relationship with the institution and
therefore cannot act on its behalf. One
commenter stated that once the
institution is no longer a member of the
agency, the responsibilities envisioned
in § 602.24(d)(i), securing teach-out
options after closure, and § 602.24(d)(ii),
establishing transfer options with
institutions named in a teach-out plan,
are not feasible. Commenters argued
that an institution that closes without a

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

teach-out plan would not have preidentified teach-out institutions, making
the provision impossible to carry out
and recommended narrowing
§ 602.24(d) to include only paragraphs
(iii) and (iv).
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the commenters’ perspective
on the scope of § 602.24(d), but the
Department will not adopt the
recommendation to limit the provision
to paragraphs (iii) and (iv). As described
in the NPRM, § 602.24(d) is designed to
ensure that, when an institution closes
without a teach-out plan, accrediting
agencies, States, and the Department act
promptly and cohesively to help
students identify reasonable
opportunities to complete their
education without additional charges.
§ 602.24(d) does not require accrediting
agencies to act on behalf of a closed
institution; rather, it requires them to
work, to the extent feasible, with the
Department and appropriate State
agencies to help students secure
reasonable opportunities for educational
continuation. Therefore, these
provisions serve as expectations for
coordinated student protection rather
than as prescriptive requirements
mandating specific teach-out
arrangements.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that teach-out requirements should
account for specialized programs,
clinical placements, licensure pathways,
employer partnerships, and rural areas
with few comparable providers.
Commenters urged the Department to
consider reasonable extensions and
provide clear transition protections,
including continuity of Federal student
aid when an accrediting agency’s
recognition changes or a decision
remains under authorized review.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the commenter’s
concerns about ensuring continuity of
student support when an accrediting
agency’s recognition changes or when a
recognition decision remains under
authorized review. While statute
governs the Department’s ability to
extend Federal student aid eligibility
beyond what Congress permits, and
does not permit the extensions
contemplated by the commenters here,
the Department reiterates that § 600.11
and § 602.10 establish the necessary
framework to ensure orderly transitions
between accrediting agencies and
prevent disruptions to institutional
eligibility for Federal programs during
such periods.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
their concern regarding a student’s

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
ability to access a transcript once their
institution closes. The commenter
recommended that, in addition to
traditional arrangements, the
Department require institutions to fulfill
a portion of their transcript access
obligations by providing students with
durable, independently verifiable copies
of their academic records prior to the
institution closing. The commenter
asserted that the proposed rule relied
heavily on institutions maintaining and
providing transcript access after closure,
and argued that this model is inherently
fragile due to the reasons institutions
shutter—limited staff, funding, and no
successor to maintain administrative
functions, such as transcript
availability.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that ensuring students can access their
academic records during and after
institutional closure is an essential
component of student protection, and
nothing in § 602.24(c)(4) prevents
accrediting agencies from adopting
supplemental measures to strengthen
that access. Institutions have a
fundamental responsibility to ensure
that students have access to their
transcript. Although institutions and
agencies may require additional
safeguards, that does not mean
standards or practices should abdicate
the fundamental responsibility that
requires such distribution and access in
the first place.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to not implement changes
to § 602.24(c)(8) and asserted the
revisions would substantially weaken
student protections by removing
concrete guidelines for equitable
treatment of students. Further, the
commenter requested the Department
not implement changes to
§ 602.24(c)(10), as providing notice to
accrediting agencies of teach-out-related
communications helps to ensure
transparency and that institutions are
not making misrepresentations to
students.
Discussion: With respect to
§ 602.24(c)(8), the Department’s intent
in revising this provision is not to
reduce protections for students, but to
ensure that accrediting agencies retain
appropriate flexibility while
maintaining a predictable Federal
framework. The Department notes that
the broader teach-out requirements
continue to provide clear expectations
for agencies to intervene early and
ensure consistent safeguards for
students across the Federal-Stateaccrediting agency triad. Regarding
§ 602.24(c)(10), the Department has
concluded that the existing structure of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

agency oversight, combined with the
strengthened Federal framework
elsewhere in the regulation, is sufficient
to ensure that agencies have the
information necessary to monitor
institutional behavior and protect
students. For these reasons, the
Department will not make changes to
the proposed regulations in the final
rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that teach-out requirements are already
fully addressed by accrediting bodies,
noting that current standards require
institutions to identify comparable
institutions, ensure transcript
preservation, and support students
during transitions.
Discussion: The final rule builds upon
existing accrediting agency expectations
by clarifying when institutions must
submit teach-out plans versus teach-out
agreements, establishing consistent
timelines for initiating required actions,
and reinforcing the importance of
maintaining access to academic records
during and after closure. These
clarifications do not replace accrediting
agency requirements; rather, they
provide a predictable Federal
framework to ensure early intervention
and consistent safeguards across the
triad.
Changes: None.
Transfer of Credit Policies
Comments: Several commenters
support the proposed transfer of credit
protections, emphasizing that students
should not be denied credit simply
because their coursework was
completed at an institution accredited
by a different accrediting agency. While
supporting greater transparency and
fairness in transfer of credit decisions,
commenters stressed the need to
preserve institutional authority to
determine academic comparability,
program coherence, sequencing, and
specialized accreditation requirements.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the significant support for
the proposed transfer of credit
protections, and we recognize the
concerns regarding the importance of
preserving institutional authority over
academic determinations. The
Department clarifies that decisions
related to comparability, program
sequencing, coherence, and specialized
accreditation requirements rest with
institutions and their faculty, as they are
responsible for maintaining academic
quality and the integrity of degree
pathways. The final rule does not
require institutions to accept transfer
credit that is not comparable or that
would compromise program quality;

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68665

rather, they require institutions to apply
their criteria transparently, consistently,
and not reject credit solely due to
differences in the recognized accrediting
agency.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify that the transfer of credit
provisions do not create a presumption
that credit from another accredited
institution must be accepted, and that
institutions retain meaningful academic
discretion to determine whether prior
coursework is comparable and
applicable to their curricula,
particularly at institutions with a
religious mission. The commenters
stated that these institutions must retain
the ability to decline credit from
institutions that do not share their
theological commitments and should
not be required to conduct
individualized case-by-case reviews.
Commenters requested explicit
recognition of institutional mission,
worldview, curricular coherence,
program sequencing, residency
requirements, professional accreditation
and licensure standards, and similar
academic considerations as valid bases
for denying transfer credit.
One commenter stated that transfer of
credits in STEM disciplines carries
unique academic risks, such as courses
with identical numbers and similar
curricula varying significantly
depending on the faculty member,
instructional approach, and rigor.
Because of these variations, the
commenter argued that automatic or
presumed acceptance of STEM credit is
inappropriate and potentially harmful.
The commenter recommended that the
Department require every transfer
student have a conversation with a
faculty member for each STEM course to
ensure the student is adequately
prepared and placed appropriately.
Another commenter asked for
clarification on the permissible types of
academic criteria preserved by
602.24(e)(4)’s ‘‘academic standards or
curricular requirements’’ qualifier for
limiting transfer credit. A different
commenter argued that § 602.24(e)(3–5)
endangers the integrity of undergraduate
courses and recommended that those
paragraphs be removed. The commenter
stated that it does students no favors to
assume that all courses are equivalent,
and that institutions should continue to
carefully negotiate transfer credit
criteria.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the assertions that § 602.24(e)(3–5)
presumes that all courses are equivalent
or undermines academic quality.
Likewise, the Department also disagrees

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68666

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

with the claim that the transfer of credit
provisions in § 602.24(e) eliminate
institutional discretion or prevents
institutions from considering missionbased factors when determining
whether coursework is comparable and
applicable. The regulations under
§ 602.24(e) do not require institutions to
accept coursework that does not meet
their academic standards, curricular
requirements, or program specific
expectations. Instead, the regulations
require institutions to apply published
criteria consistently and prohibit the
denial of credit solely based on the
institution or its recognized accrediting
agency. The Department recognizes that
institutions retain discretion to establish
and apply academic criteria when
evaluating transfer credit. Such criteria
may include, for example, determining
whether prior coursework is sufficiently
comparable in content, learning
outcomes, level, prerequisites,
accreditation-related program
requirements, or degree-specific
curricular expectations. These examples
are illustrative rather than exhaustive
and are intended to reflect institutions’
authority to make individualized
academic determinations consistent
with their educational mission and
program requirements.
Further, the Department recognizes
the concerns stated by the commenter
while noting that all credits are not
created equal. The Department believes
this rule establishes appropriate checks
and balances to ensure that institutions
accept those credits that are equal
through careful evaluation, and
ensuring that students are provided the
appropriate, additional education where
it deems, with a reasoned explanation,
that these credits are not equal. These
requirements do not override
institutional judgment regarding
comparability or academic fit; therefore,
the Department declines to add new
regulatory language enumerating all
possible academic bases for denying
credit.
The Department appreciates the
commenter’s concerns regarding the
unique challenges when evaluating
transfer credit in STEM fields; however,
these requirements do not require
institutions to provide ‘‘blind’’
acceptance of STEM credit as the
commenter asserted, nor do they
interfere with faculty judgment
regarding whether a student is
adequately prepared for advanced
coursework. Institutions may, and
should, continue to engage faculty in
evaluating demanding STEM courses
and determining appropriate placement
or support to protect student success. At
the same time, the Department

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

maintains that students deserve clear
explanations when credit is not
accepted and timely information about
how their prior coursework will count
before committing financially to
enrollment at the transfer institution.
This transparency supports informed
decision-making and reduces the
likelihood of students repeating
coursework unnecessarily. The
Department believes the final rule
appropriately balances institutional
discretion with the need for fair,
transparent, and consistently applied
transfer credit practices, and ensures
that students receive clear explanations
for credit determinations while
institutions maintain full authority over
academic requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
requested a process to evaluate several
categories of coursework, including
Registered Apprenticeship-related
instruction, pre-apprenticeship and
noncredit occupational training,
industry-recognized credentials, dual
enrollment, military training and
service-related learning, documented
employment-based learning, prepharmacy coursework, direct-entry
pathways, integrated undergraduateprofessional curricula, and competency
assessments. One commenter
emphasized that the regional accrediting
agency affiliation remains important for
evaluating transfer credit, especially
across States, as standards and
coursework may not align with local
licensure expectations. Another
commenter asked whether institutions
may maintain differentiated transfer
policies based on enrollment status,
modality, or instructional setting.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that institutions and
accrediting agencies play a central role
in determining whether coursework
aligns with local programmatic or
licensure expectations. The final rule
does not alter institutions’ ability to
assess comparability of content, rigor,
and learning outcomes, including Statespecific requirements in fields such as
teacher education or health programs.
Institutions may continue to apply
differentiated transfer policies where
distinctions reflect legitimate academic
considerations and are applied
transparently and consistently. As a
reminder, the Department no longer
recognizes ‘‘regional’’ accreditation as a
separate Federal category; all recognized
institutional accrediting agencies are
held to the same standards and therefore
no longer held to an arbitrary
geographic distinction. Therefore, the
commenter’s concerns here are not

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

applicable, and the Department declines
to make such changes.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged
flexibility in establishing transcript
submission and review timelines, using
business days rather than calendar days
for appeals, and allowing institutions at
least 30 business days for appeals
requiring additional faculty review. One
commenter warned that the 15-day
appeal window requirement is
significantly more restrictive than
existing State frameworks, which may
lead to rushed and error prone
evaluations. Another commenter
suggested § 602.24(e)(5) to read:
‘‘Provide the student an opportunity to
appeal the decision or request a
competency-based or direct assessment
evaluation of the student’s knowledge of
the subject-matter within 15 calendar
days of receipt of the institution’s
written notification if an institution
declines to award transfer credit under
paragraph (4).’’ A different commenter
asserted their belief that the Federal
appeals process was unnecessary, as
institutions already publish transfer
credit policies and maintain procedures
for addressing student concerns.
According to the commenter, imposing
a mandatory Federal process would add
administrative burden and costs without
improving educational quality.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
that 30 business days are needed to
carry out the appeal requirements in the
regulations. Timely and transparent
communication to students is essential,
including the resolution of credit
transfer appeals within a predictable
and consistent timeframe. Therefore, the
Department will not adopt the
recommendations to replace calendarday deadlines with business-day
deadlines or provide 30 business days
for appeals requiring additional faculty
review. The Department believes a clear
and accessible appeal opportunity is an
important safeguard for students,
particularly to those who may otherwise
be required to retake coursework
unnecessarily or who may not
understand the basis for denial.
Although institutions may already have
internal complaint or appeals processes,
those processes differ widely. A
minimum Federal requirement helps
ensure that students’ rights are
protected consistently across
institutions, as well as provide
necessary information timely to
students so they can make informed
decisions about their education. The
Department encourages institutions to
adopt efficient transcript review
systems, standardized explanation
templates tied to academic criteria, and

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
collaborative transfer pathway
agreements that support student
mobility.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended revising § 602.24(e)(5) so
that the 15-calendar day period begins
on ‘‘the date the institution issues the
notification,’’ rather than the date of
‘‘receipt.’’ They noted that the definition
‘‘receipt’’ is operationally unfeasible, as
institutions cannot reliably document
when a student opens or receives the
communication. The commenter argued
that using the date the institution sends
the notification would create a clear,
administratively feasible standard,
reduce burdens on students to prove
receipt of an email, and avoid ambiguity
that could undermine the fairness of the
appeal process.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges there could be some
practical challenges, as described by the
commenter, regarding verification of
receipt and administrative tracking.
However, the Department notes that the
purpose of the regulatory language is to
ensure that students receive the full
benefit of the appeal period and are not
disadvantaged by delays in
communication systems or institutional
processes outside their control. Aligning
the appeal timeline to the date the
institution issues the notification could,
in some cases, unintentionally shorten
the time available to students,
particularly those experiencing delays
in email access, inconsistent
connectivity, or other barriers.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters noted
that some institutions are evading the
Department’s proposed interpretive
rule, which eliminated the use of
‘‘regional’’ accreditation categories,
requiring both institutions and
accrediting agencies to relabel or reword
their policies. The commenters stated
that colleges continue to block credit by
using terms like ‘‘regionally accredited,’’
‘‘formerly regional,’’ or listing only the
seven former regional accrediting
agencies as locations or institutions
from which it will accept credit. The
commenters urged the Department to
clarify that any policy conditioning
transfer of credit on the old ‘‘regional’’
group or on a subset of recognized
accrediting agencies constitutes a
decision that is prohibited under the
criteria, as it is based on ‘‘solely’’ on an
accrediting agency.
Discussion: The Department
acknowledges the concerns of
institutional practices relying on the
former ‘‘regional’’ accreditation
construct. The final rule ensures that
institutions do not deny credit transfer

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

based solely on the identity of the
institution’s recognized accrediting
agency, and that credit transfer
determinations focus on the
comparability of coursework, rather
than outdated accreditation categories.
The Department clarifies that
conditioning transfer credit on
accreditation by specific agencies or on
any subset of recognized accrediting
agencies is a form of denial based
‘‘solely’’ on accrediting agency and is
prohibited under § 602.24(e)(3).
Institutions must evaluate transfer credit
using transparent, academically
grounded criteria that are unrelated to
the branding or historical categorization
of accrediting agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that the new transfer of credit
provisions should not extend to
graduate or professional programs; and
recommended that the Department
explicitly delineate that such policies
only apply to undergraduate education.
Commenters requested that the final
rule explicitly affirm that graduate
institutions retain authority to evaluate
transfer credit based on program
coherence, sequencing, clinical
integration, and degree outcomes.
Discussion: Graduate and professional
programs are not included within the
scope of these transfer of credit
requirements. Institutions retain full
discretion, consistent with their
published policies, to evaluate graduatelevel prior learning using appropriate
criteria for specialized, advanced, or
professionally regulated programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended extending these
protections to graduate programs, noting
that accrediting agency-based
discrimination similarly affects graduate
admissions and graduate transfer credit.
The commenter proposed adding a new
§ 602.24(g) that would bar graduate
programs from denying admission or
transfer credit solely because of the
accrediting agency of the applicant’s
prior institution. The commenter
proposed the following: ‘‘Graduate
admission and graduate transfer of
credit policies. For agencies that
accredit institutions offering graduate or
professional programs, the accrediting
agency must confirm, as part of its
review for initial accreditation or
preaccreditation, or renewal of
accreditation, that the institution does
not deny admission to a graduate or
professional program, or deny the award
of graduate transfer credit, solely on the
basis of the accreditation status of the
agency that accredited the applicant’s or
student’s prior degree-granting

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68667

institution, provided that institution
was accredited by an agency recognized
by the Secretary under this part at the
time the degree was awarded.’’
Another commenter argued that
universities apply inconsistent credit
transfer standards between American
and international students. According to
the commenter, institutions often deny
American students’ transfer credits
without explanation, forcing them to
retake courses unnecessarily. In
contrast, the commenter claimed that
universities accept full credits from
international institutions, such as those
in India, without comparable scrutiny,
which results in more international
students entering taxpayer-funded
graduate programs. The commenter
further asserted that, because many
American colleges now offer fully
online undergraduate programs,
international students also earn
regionally accredited degrees which
eliminates any justification for treating
their credits differently. The commenter
suggested that transfer of credit
compliance be enforced equally,
regardless of national origin.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the concern that accrediting
agency-based discrimination also affects
graduate students; however, the
Department declines to add proposed
§ 602.24(g). The transfer of credit
framework in § 602.24(e) is intentionally
scoped to undergraduate coursework,
reflecting both the predominant volume
of student mobility at the undergraduate
level and the need to maintain
institutional discretion for
programmatic and discipline-specific
graduate admission standards.
Regarding the inconsistency of
international credit transfer, the
Department agrees that institutions
should apply their transfer of credit
policies consistently and transparently.
The final rule does not prescribe
specific academic standards for
accepting or rejecting transfer credit, nor
do they require institutions to evaluate
coursework from different States or
countries in any specific manner.
However, what the regulations do
require is that an institution apply the
standards it determines appropriate to
its mission, programs, students, and
content consistently, across all students,
regardless of international status.
Institutions retain responsibility for
establishing and applying their transfer
of credit policies consistent with
applicable law and accrediting agency
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, when evaluating program length,
accrediting agencies and the Department

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68668

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

account explicitly for differences
between semester credit and quarter
credit systems. The commenter stated
that a 180-quarter-credit bachelor’s
degree is equivalent to a 120-semestercredit bachelor’s degree, and suggested
that program length be assessed based
on actual academic work and expected
time to completion, rather than nominal
credit values.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that program length evaluations must
account for differences between
semester-credit and quarter-credit
systems. Accrediting agencies should
determine whether a program’s credit
structure, instructional time, and
expected student workload are
appropriate to the credential awarded.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to clarify whether the
presumption to award credit under
§ 602.24(e)(4) and the per-course
written-rationale requirement under
§ 668.43(c)(4) applies only to credit
earned at other title IV institutions.
Discussion: Yes, the requirements in
§ 602.24(e)(4) and § 668.43(c)(4) apply
only to credits earned at title IV
institutions that are accredited by a
Department recognized agency.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether accrediting agency recognition
in 602.24(e)(3) is measured at course
completion or at evaluation. The
commenter also asked the Department
to address transcript delays beyond the
students’ and receiving institution’s
control.
The commenter requested
confirmation that late transcripts would
not reopen prior evaluations or appeal
periods. On the other hand, another
commenter request clarification that a
school cannot reject a timely, wellsupported appeal solely due to
circumstances beyond the student’s
control that caused them to miss the
standard deadline.
Discussion: Recognition is determined
based on the accrediting agency’s status
at the time the student completed the
course or program. One of the purposes
of the Database of Accredited
Postsecondary Institutions and
Programs (DAPIP) is to provide
students, employers, licensing bodies,
and other stakeholders with a historical
record that can be used to verify
whether an institution or program was
accredited at the time a student
attended or completed the program.
Maintaining recognition determinations
based on the accrediting agency’s status
during the period of attendance
promotes transparency, consistency,
and the reliability of accreditation

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

records. DAPIP serves as an important
resource for validating the accreditation
status applicable to a student’s course of
study or credential at the time it was
earned.
We understand the commenters’
concerns regarding transcript delays
that are outside the control of the
student or the receiving institution.
Timelines for transcript review may
vary widely across institutions, and
delays can arise from staffing
limitations, prior institutions’
processing schedules, or mail delivery
issues. The Department acknowledges
these practical concerns and clarifies
that late-arriving transcripts do not reopen prior evaluations or restart appeal
periods, provided the institution made
its determination based on the
information available at the time and in
accordance with its established criteria.
The Department agrees that appeals
processes must offer meaningful student
protection and confirms that institutions
may not dismiss an otherwise valid
appeal purely because external
circumstances impeded a student’s
ability to meet an administrative
timeline. This principle is reflected in
Departmental due process expectations,
which require agencies and institutions
to afford students reasonable
opportunities to respond or supply
supporting evidence before adverse
determinations are finalized.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
the Department clarify in the final rule’s
preamble or the Accreditation
Handbook that § 602.24(e) is not meant
to discourage institutions or accrediting
agencies from applying the same
principles—transparency, consistency,
comparability—to standardized
examination credit, and other forms of
prior learning, where appropriate. The
commenter argued that such
clarification would not expand
institutional obligations or interfere
with accrediting agency authority, but
that it would instead prevent an overly
narrow interpretation.
Discussion: § 602.24(e) is focused on
ensuring that students receive clear,
academically grounded explanations of
credit transfer determinations,
particularly involving coursework
completed at institutions accredited by
title IV gatekeeper agencies. The
Department notes that this requirement
does not limit institutions or accrediting
agencies from applying similar
evaluative principles to other forms of
learning, including standardized
examination credit, credit for prior
learning, or other competencies,
provided such practices remain within
accrediting agency standards and

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

institutional authority. The Department
agrees that applying these principles
consistently across credit-evaluation
contexts can promote student
understanding and institutional
fairness. The final rule establishes
baseline expectations for transfer credit
determinations while preserving
institutional and accrediting agency
flexibility to adopt broader frameworks
where appropriate. This is consistent
with the Department’s intention to
ensure clarity for students while
allowing accrediting agencies and
institutions to accommodate variation in
academic structures and evaluation
practices.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the preamble clearly
differentiate the teach-out and
institutional closure provisions from the
transfer of credit provisions. The
commenter suggested that the summary
be revised to state that the appeal
process applies only to credit transfer
denials. The commenter expressed
concern that the discussion of student
protections during institutional
disruption flows directly into a
statement that students would have ‘‘an
appeals process,’’ which they believed
could be misread as an appeals right
related to closure or teach-out decisions.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the commenter’s concerns
and agrees that greater clarity could be
provided in the preamble. Accordingly,
we have separated the summary of
requirements in § 602.24 into two
sentences. See the ‘‘Summary of Major
Provisions’’ for the changes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to strike the phrase
‘‘comparable in content’’ from the
regulatory section here. The commenter
asserted that the phrase shifts focus
away from learning outcomes and could
encourage institutions to invoke
extraneous criteria, such as course
modality or accrediting agency of the
sending institution. The commenter
believed that credit should be awarded
if there is 70 percent or more alignment
in learning outcomes. If the 70 threshold
is not met, the commenter
recommended institutions focus on
whether the learner is sufficiently
prepared to succeed in subsequent
education.
Discussion: The purpose of § 602.24(e)
is to ensure that students receive clear,
academically grounded explanations
when transfer credit is denied, not to
prescribe a uniform evaluative
methodology across institutions or
mandate specific thresholds. The
Department recognizes that institutions

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
increasingly rely on learning outcomebased evaluation models and affirms
that accrediting agencies and
institutions may rely primarily on
learning outcomes when determining
equivalency. Nothing in § 602.24(e)
prohibits or discourages such practices.
However, the Department does not
believe that removing the phrase
‘‘comparable in content’’ or establishing
a Federally mandated percentage
threshold would be appropriate or
consistent with statutory limits on the
Secretary’s authority. Accrediting
agencies and institutions must retain
discretion to determine appropriate
academic criteria based on institutional
mission, program structure, content,
learning outcomes, sequencing,
licensure requirements, or other
academically relevant factors. For some
disciplines, content comparability
remains an essential component of
academic quality, even when learning
outcomes are also evaluated.
Accordingly, the Department declines to
revise the regulation to remove the
phrase ‘‘comparable in content’’ or to
substitute a fixed percentage standard.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters argued
that the proposed rule requires transfer
criteria that go beyond what is allowable
in statute. The commenters asserted that
the HEA does not authorize the
Secretary to require policies,
procedures, or practices by institutions
of higher education with respect to
transfer of credit. If the final rule does
include new requirements for transfer of
credit policies, the commenters urged
the Department to maintain the
language in the proposed rule that
allows colleges to factor in comparative
evaluations of content and learning
outcomes to the institution’s own course
offerings in its decision-making.
Discussion: The Department’s final
rule is grounded in its long-standing
authority to establish criteria for
accrediting agency recognition, and to
ensure that accrediting agencies apply
standards consistently and
transparently. The transfer of credit
provisions in § 602.24(e) do not
mandate how institutions must award
credit, nor do they dictate academic
judgments. Rather, they require
accrediting agencies to confirm that
institutions publicly disclose their
transfer of credit policies and apply
their stated criteria consistently and
without arbitrary discrimination. These
provisions fall squarely within the
Department’s statutory authority to
oversee accrediting agency recognition
and to protect students through
transparent, fair, and predictable
institutional processes. The Department

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

agrees that institutions must retain
academic discretion to evaluate
comparability and applicability of
coursework, and confirms that the final
rule continues to allow consideration of
content, outcomes, and other
academically relevant factors as part of
an institution’s decision-making
framework.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
opposed the proposed transfer of credit
provisions entirely, and requested they
be removed from the amended
regulations. Commenters cautioned that
these changes could unintentionally
broaden the acceptance of credits from
accrediting agencies with weaker
standards, and emphasized that credit
transfer decisions should continue to
rest with institutional academic
judgment.
Discussion: The Department declines
to remove § 602.24(e). These changes
preserve institutional autonomy and
academic standards while addressing
longstanding problems students face
when transferring between institutions,
including the potential for a loss of large
portions of earned credit and difficulty
progressing through a degree program.
Changes: None.
§ 602.25

Due Process

Comments: One commenter stated
that the proposed changes to § 602.25
should be reconsidered because they are
unnecessary and risk weakening
meaningful due process. The
commenter stated that the Department
should preserve the current due process
framework, which sufficiently protects
institutions without recreating the
burdens of litigation inside the
accreditation process.
Discussion: We decline the
commenter’s recommendation. The
Department believes the changes satisfy
due process while also reducing
prescriptive requirements on accrediting
agencies that are not required by statute.
The changes to § 602.25 are limited to
the administration of the appeals
process by an agency and do not weaken
or fail to satisfy due process.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asserted
that institutions face informal
expectations from accrediting agencies
that are unwritten and only verbally
communicated through evaluators, staff,
guidance, or prior decisions. The
commenter stated that institutions face
pressure to comply with these verbal
directives and requested that the rule
clearly state that adverse actions must
be provided in writing and based on a
written identified accreditation standard

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68669

and accurate information, not an
unwritten expectation.
Discussion: The regulations in this
section currently require written
notification and specification regarding
adverse action. If an institution receives
an informal adverse action based on an
unwritten expectation from an agency,
then the institution should submit a
formal complaint against the agency to
the Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended revising § 602.25(c) to
read: ‘‘Provides the institution or
program with a written specification of
any deficiency identified, including the
applicable accreditation standard,
policy, or requirement; the material
institution- or program-specific findings
supporting the deficiency; and, when
the agency requires additional
information, documentation, corrective
action, or other evidence of compliance,
a sufficiently specific description of the
information, documentation, evidence,
or showing that the institution or
program must provide to demonstrate
resolution of the deficiency.’’ The
commenter stated that the language
would close the principal gap in the
current formulation.
Discussion: We decline the
recommendation. We believe that the
spirit of the commenter’s
recommendation is sufficiently covered
under § 602.25. The regulation already
requires ‘‘. . . written specification of
any deficiencies . . .’’. We believe the
language proposed by the commenter
would be overly prescriptive and
burdensome. If an institution or
program believes that the agency has not
provided sufficient information under
§ 602.25(c) the institution or program
can communicate with the agency
requesting more specificity.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department strengthen
§ 602.25(e) to read: ‘‘The notice must
provide an institution- or programspecific explanation of the basis for the
action, identify each accreditation
standard, policy, or requirement
material to the action, describe the
material findings supporting the action,
state applicable deadlines, and, for a
status or action that may be removed
through corrective action, describe the
criteria or showing the agency will use
to determine whether the deficiency has
been resolved and the action or status
may be removed.’’ The commenter
believed more precise language would
remove uncertainty surrounding what
an adequate description entails.
Discussion: We decline the
commenter’s suggestion. We believe the

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68670

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

regulation is sufficient to require
detailed notice from the agency on
adverse actions. The Department does
not want to be overly prescriptive with
this regulation, and notes that this
portion of the regulation was not
modified in the proposed rule. Instead,
we allow agencies to determine their
adverse action notification requirements
and believe that provides accrediting
agencies sufficient flexibility, while
maintaining appropriate oversight of its
institutions or programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department clarify that under
§ 602.25(f)(1)(iii) and (iv), in the event of
a decision by the appeals panel that
differs from that of the original decisionmaking body, the original decisionmaking body must act in a manner
consistent with the appeals panel’s
decision or instructions.
Discussion: We decline the
recommendation; the commenter’s
request is implied in the nature of an
appeal. The mere difference of opinion
implies that the appeal was lost, and
that the findings of the initial decisionmakers are upheld.
Changes: None.
Comments: In order to require
material oral instructions or
clarifications to be memorialized in
writing, one commenter requested the
Department add a new paragraph to
read: ‘‘If the agency or its authorized
representatives communicate orally a
material institution- or program-specific
instruction or clarification concerning
an identified deficiency, required
special or follow-up report, evidence of
compliance, corrective action, deadline,
or criteria for removing or reversing an
accreditation status or action, the
agency must promptly memorialize the
substance of that instruction or
clarification in writing and provide it to
the institution or program. The agency
may satisfy this requirement through
electronic communication. The written
confirmation must be provided within a
reasonable period, not to exceed 10
business days, and sufficiently before
any applicable response deadline to
permit a meaningful response.’’
Discussion: We decline to add the
new paragraph. Oral instructions from
an agency to an institution are not
authorized under the due process
regulations. All requirements must be in
writing; the Department declines to
imply that an agency can offer any
instruction to an institution or program
orally.
Changes: None.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Department disagrees that a new review
framework overseeing recognized
Comments: Most commenters broadly accrediting agencies that serve as the
primary gatekeepers for the Federal
disagreed with the revised § 602.26.
student aid programs equates to
Commenters stated the following as
weaponizing the title IV, HEA programs.
rationale for opposition to the
Rather, these revisions ensure that
provisions:
students are protected from misuse of
• The final rule would weaken the
these funds, and that their continuing
consumer information role and
education is protected. The review
effectiveness of accrediting agencies;
framework ensures that all institutions
• The final rule would weaken
that receive title IV, HEA program funds
safeguards surrounding institutions that
are worthy, and also allows institutions
change accrediting agencies;
that believe they were wrongly judged
• The Federal government would be
to continue educating their students
weaponizing title IV, HEA funding
while legal actions proceed. The final
eligibility;
rule is needed to improve educational
• The Department could keep an
quality, protect students and taxpayers,
institution’s title IV eligibility active for
and promote a higher education
an unreasonable or unlimited period
accreditation system that supports
while an adverse accreditation action is
innovation, accountability, and legal
under appeal;
compliance. We do not see any reason
• The standard or discretion is
to believe that these changes will
unclear for keeping an institution’s title
undermine the world standing of the
IV eligibility active while an adverse
United States, nor did the commenter
accreditation action is under appeal;
provide a persuasive argument that this
• The final rule would constrain
would occur.
accrediting agencies and reduce the
Changes: None.
standing of the U.S. globally;
Comments: Several commenters
• The final rule should require fair
agreed with the Department’s changes to
and specific procedures before an
§ 602.26, specifically regarding the
accrediting agency takes adverse action; provisions that require an agency to
• The Department could second-guess note a probation or adverse decision in
accrediting agency decisions; and
its public website directory within one
• Rapid disclosure of agency actions
business day of notifying the institution,
may affect enrollment decisions,
and maintaining a five-year record of
transfer activity, employee recruitment,
every action taken for each institution it
philanthropy, etc., before an underlying accredits. The commenter emphasized
dispute is resolved.
these are specific duties on a fixed
Discussion: The Department disagrees timeframe and should be easily
with these comments. Our intention in
reviewed for compliance. The
amending this regulation, and our
commenter also recommended that the
expectations for institutions and
Department further modify § 602.26(h)
accrediting agencies after this rule is
to add a variable time limit based on
promulgated, is that this rule will
published agency findings, require a
establish a uniform disclosure
determination that weighs student and
framework of accreditation actions,
taxpayer harm, and notify enrolled
enhance transparency, and strengthen
students that aid is continuing
consumer protection. Regarding new
provisionally. Other commenters
§ 602.26(h), we feel the stated timeframe affirmed this approach should limit
allows appropriate latitude when
disruption during a review period and
needed, and provides limits regarding
could correct erroneous decisions
the length of time an institution’s
related to accreditation, thus allowing
eligibility may be extended. We do not
for an objective review and preserving
expect this provision to be employed as the integrity of the process.
frequently as some commenters
Discussion: We appreciate the
expressed. The Department may provide commenter’s support. The
additional guidance in the future
recommendation to further modify
regarding the process for an institution
§ 602.26(h) would add significant
to request a continuation of eligibility
complexity and burden to both
for title IV, HEA program funds when it institutions and agencies when
is challenging an agency’s decision to
weighing a temporary continuation of
end its accreditation.
eligibility for title IV, HEA funds until
Regarding the concern of rapid
due process is exhausted. The
disclosure of agency actions adversely
Department believes the new § 602.26
affecting enrollment decisions, the
will provide increased transparency and
Department reasserts its desire to
will provide effective implementation of
enhance transparency and strengthen
the directives set forth in E.O. 14279.
Changes: None.
consumer protections. Finally, the
§ 602.26 Notification of Accrediting
Decisions

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Comments: Another commenter
suggested that the requirements of
§ 602.26(f) be limited to the actions
listed in § 602.26(b) and § 602.26(c). The
commenter further stressed there should
not be a reference to § 602.26(e) in
§ 602.26(f), as § 602.26(e) does not
delineate any actions that could be
disclosed.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. The intent of § 602.26(f) is to
broaden transparency and notification
efforts to convey all actions taken for the
specified period. We feel this expanded
requirement will benefit any interested
person or entity seeking recent
accrediting agency actions at a specific
institution or program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stressed
the Department should clarify that
‘‘clear explanation in writing’’ under
§ 602.26 means more than identifying a
general standard or reproducing
standard language. The commenter
opined that the written communication
should contain institution-specific
findings.
Discussion: The changes to
§ 602.26(b), (c), (d) and (e) are designed
to improve transparency and clarify the
notice requirements (e.g., clear
explanations in lieu of brief
summarizing statements). The
Department declines to define the term
‘‘clear explanation’’ but expects
accrediting agencies to, in lieu of a
decision letter, provide specific
information consistent with what is
included in a decision letter for the
institution or program. The Department
reserves its authority and capability to
regulate further on this topic as, and if,
needed.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
clarification regarding the requirement
in § 602.26(f) that would require an
accrediting agency to maintain on its
website ‘‘a clear record of all actions
taken’’ for each institution or program it
accredits or preaccredits for a period of
at least five years. Specifically, the
commenter asked if this five-year
requirement would be from the effective
date of the final rule or retroactive for
the past five years.
Discussion: The Department thanks
the commenter for this request for
clarification. We note that this
requirement is not retroactive; it will
apply beginning on the effective date of
these regulations.
Changes: None.
§ 602.28 Regard for Decisions of States
and Other Accrediting Agencies
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern that the final rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

would allow for disputed political or
ideological viewpoints to become
conflicts in the accreditation process.
The commenters stressed that students
should not risk losing access to higher
education or title IV, HEA program
funds due to any disagreement between
political officials and a university
regarding its policies or activities. The
commenters emphasized that
accreditation decisions should be based
on educational quality and established
accreditation standards.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters. The intent in
revising § 602.28(d) is to protect the
consumer—students. The final rule does
this by broadening the circumstances
under which an accrediting agency must
promptly review an institution or
program to include when adverse or
certain negative actions are taken by
other State or Federal agencies.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
expressed concerns about the expansion
of this regulation that includes adverse
actions or probation or equivalent
statuses by State and Federal agencies.
Some commenters suggested limiting
State and Federal agencies to State
approving/authorizing agencies. Other
commenters suggested that the revised
rule should apply only to final, written
findings that are issued after notice and
an opportunity to respond.
Discussion: The final rule is intended
to increase accountability for
institutions or programs subject to
adverse or certain negative actions by
State and Federal authorities by
requiring accrediting agencies to
promptly review those institutions or
programs for continued compliance
with the agency’s standards. If a
compliance issue exists or existed, even
if only tangentially, it should be
promptly reviewed by the agency.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to add language to § 602.28
that clarifies the process outlined in
§ 602.20 for institutions, should an
accrediting agency review an
institution’s accreditation or
preaccreditation due to being placed on
probation, or equivalent status, by a
state or Federal agency. The commenter
stressed that institutions should be able
to provide evidence that may indicate
the issue has been resolved before any
final decision is made.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the amendments to this section do
not impact the enforcement
requirements in § 602.20. This section
includes the actions taken by recognized
accrediting agencies, State agencies, or
Federal agencies that trigger a prompt

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68671

review of an institution’s or program’s
preaccreditation or accreditation by
their accrediting agency. The
Department expects that any agency’s
review of an institution or program
would include correspondence with the
institution or program under review
before making a compliance
determination.
Changes: None
Comments: A few commenters
requested the Department provide a
definition of the term ‘‘adverse action.’’
The commenters warned that the final
rule could be abused or misapplied
without an explicit definition of this
term.
Discussion: The Department clarifies
that the definition of adverse action is
found in § 602.3(b), which reads:
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.
Changes: None.
§ 602.30 Agency Applications and
Reports to be Submitted to the
Department
Comments: Two commenters
requested that the Department specify a
review process for confidential
information submitted by accrediting
agencies to ensure agencies can submit
information without risking any
inappropriate disclosure.
Discussion: The final rule specifies
that accrediting agencies must redact all
personally identifiable information for
individuals acting as agents of the
agency, or of an institution or program
under review, and the names and any
other personally identifiable
information of students or others who
are not agents of the agency or of an
institution or program the agency is
reviewing. The Department already has
in place processes for the review of
information that the agency designated
as exempt from disclosure; and
therefore further changes in the
regulations were not required.
Changes: None
§ 602.31 Procedures for Submitting
Applications for Recognition and
Renewal of Recognition
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern that changing the
review timeline to the proposed shorter
timeline would make the review less
rigorous. Two commenters suggested
that the Department should include
time ranges, including establishing
minimum and maximum time periods
for each stage of the review process. The

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68672

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

commenters also requested that the
Department apply those same timelines
to all agencies or provide criteria for
differentiated periods of review and
suggested that without such written
rules, the Department would enforce
timelines inequitably.
Discussion: The Department
respectfully disagrees. The new
regulations benefit both the Department
and accrediting agencies under review
by allowing for greater flexibility in the
review process and the ability to
accommodate various situations. The
establishment of strict timelines for each
stage of the review process would
eliminate the ability for the Department
to make good faith judgements on the
complexity of petitions and the
corresponding length of time available
for review. Given that the regulations
are meant to be a general framework, the
Department does hold the ability,
should the need arise, to provide
subregulatory guidance as necessary to
inform the implementation of the
regulations. The Department is
confident that the shortened review
period will continue to provide
meaningful and appropriate oversight.
In addition, the shortened period will
ensure that both accrediting agencies
submit and the Department analyze the
most current information. The timeline
of two years means Department staff,
NACIQI, and the SDO rely on out of
date information in the current review
process. The proposed timeline still
provides for an iterative and rigorous
review process. The revised recognition
review timeline also helps to reinforce
the expectation that accrediting agencies
are in compliance with the regulations
when they submit a petition for renewal
of recognition.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
stated that the Department’s usage of the
amount of title IV, HEA funds
distributed as a basis for the type of
review it conducts does not hold
sufficient specificity. Comments were
concerned about this definition due to
the lack of an explicit definition for
‘‘substantial portion’’ in the new
regulations. One commenter also
expressed concern that institutions may
specifically have a direct interest in the
determination of ‘‘substantial portion.’’
One commenter questioned whether
using the amount of title IV, HEA funds
for the determination of risk would
accurately determine which accrediting
agencies present the most risk or permit
abbreviated review. One commenter
questioned whether the Department is
permitted to abbreviate reviews under
20 U.S.C. 1099b(n)(1), further requesting
the Department establish ‘‘substantial

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

portion’’ as a specific percentage with a
corresponding annual publication of the
applicable agencies. The commenter
also requested that the Department
amend the interval for comprehensive
applications for agencies who have not
met the Department’s ‘‘substantial
portion’’ trigger to every other cycle of
review, rather than every third cycle of
review as noted in the proposed
regulations. Two commenters expressed
concerns that utilizing funding as the
benchmark for review could ignore
smaller institutions that could be prone
to additional risk. One commenter
requested that every agency undergo a
comprehensive petition at its first
renewal and that any agency that had
accepted institutions previously subject
to adverse action by another agency be
reviewed through a comprehensive
petition.
Discussion: Accrediting agencies
serve as gatekeepers in determining
which institutions may participate in
title IV, which currently provide more
than $100 billion in Pell Grants and
Federal loans to students annually. The
Department is seeking to balance its
oversight of agencies while ensuring it
can significantly decrease burden for
most accrediting agencies. The
‘‘substantial portion’’ element noted in
the new regulations allows for the
Department to accomplish this, in
balance, by enabling flexibility in the
determination of the review of agencies.
The Department does not agree with the
commenter who stated that institutions
would have a direct interest in
understanding whether or not an agency
would be comprehensively reviewed, as
there would be no effect on any specific
institution. We believe that holding the
comprehensive review as every third
review will be sufficient, given that the
agencies will be reviewed under focused
review applications in the interim,
satisfying the requirements noted in 20
U.S.C. 1099b(n)(1). While the
Department understands the
commenters’ concern regarding greater
risk for smaller institutions, the
Department has an obligation to use its
resources to provide oversight as
broadly as possible by following the
distribution of title IV, HEA funds. The
focused review applications, together
with the Department’s ability to
investigate issues and appropriately
monitor agencies, ensure sufficient
oversight in the interim period. Given
that the regulations are meant to be a
general framework, the Department does
hold the ability, should the need arise,
to provide subregulatory guidance as
necessary to inform the implementation
of the regulations.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comments: Several commenters
expressed support for the Department’s
intention to prevent accrediting
agencies from causing credential
inflation. One commenter expressed
concern that the Department would not
be able to determine when scope
inflation was necessary or unnecessary.
Discussion: We thank the commenters
for their support. By amending the
requirements in the new regulations for
a change of scope, the Department will
be able to collect and analyze detailed
information when an agency seeks to
expand credential requirements. By
requiring such a review for all changes
of scope, the Department will have a
comprehensive review process that will
ensure that an informed decision is
made on the necessity of the expansion.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter requested
accrediting agencies be specifically
permitted to ‘‘authorize external
providers to prepare, validate, format,
and transmit applications, reports, and
supporting data, subject to written
authorization, oversight, agency review
and certification, and applicable privacy
and security requirements,’’ and
‘‘reference previously submitted or
authoritative data rather than
resubmitting identical information.’’
Discussion: The Department does not
prescribe the methods that accrediting
agencies must use to complete any
petition or to complete any response to
a request for information. However, the
accrediting agency is fully responsible
for any and all submissions made to the
Department.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters
requested that the proposed regulations
be amended in § 602.31(a)(3) to only
refer to legal actions, complaints, or
other compliance issues that have been
resolved or have some sort of final
judgment given that the regulation
could be interpreted as including
pending issues. One commenter also
requested that the Department establish
an evidentiary threshold for when
complaints are reviewed by the
Department.
Discussion: The Department believes
that pending legal actions, complaints,
or other compliance matters would
indeed be appropriate to report to the
Department. The Department holds
appropriate expertise to make
judgments regarding information that is
sufficiently significant to require
additional review and oversight.
Additionally, such oversight is
necessary to ensure that pending issues
that could significantly affect the
accrediting agency, its institutions or
programs, or its students, would be

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate to review prior to any final
judgment or conclusion.
Changes: Please see the technical edit
under the ‘‘Technical Corrections’’
section. The Department is clarifying
that any determination if legal actions,
complaints, or other compliance issues
that individually or in the aggregate
raise substantial concerns regarding the
agency’s compliance would be made by
the Secretary.
Comments: One commenter requested
that the Department clarify
anticompetitive conduct to not include
an agency’s competency framework and
assessment tools, given that some
outcomes-based requirements could
prevent certain institutions or programs
from gaining or maintaining
accreditation. One commenter requested
that the preamble to the final rule
include specific information regarding
when anticompetitive conduct has
occurred.
Discussion: The Department does not
consider an agency’s standards related
to outcomes-based assessment as being
related to anticompetitive conduct.
Instances of anticompetitive conduct are
generally complex and require
judgment-based decisions grounded in a
review of agency activity and
documentation. The Department holds
appropriate expertise to make
judgments on when information is
sufficiently significant to require
additional review and oversight. The
regulations are meant to be a general
framework, though the Department does
hold the ability, should the need arise,
to provide subregulatory guidance as
necessary to inform the implementation
of the regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated
that the Department failed to specify
how it would comply with Section
496(n)(1)(A) of the HEA, which
mandates that the Department’s ‘‘. . .
evaluation [of an accrediting agency]
shall include the solicitation of thirdparty information concerning the
performance of the accrediting agency
or association . . .’’ The commenter
elaborated that the removal of this
requirement may render the
Department’s evaluation of accrediting
agency changes in scope deficient under
applicable law.
Discussion: Under § 602.31(b), the
Department publishes the agency’s
application for initial or renewal of
recognition in the Federal Register. The
public is invited to comment on the
agency’s application, thereby satisfying
the requirement that the Department
solicit third-party information in such
instances.
Changes: None.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

68673

Discussion: The Department is
§ 602.32 Procedures for Review of an
focused on increasing the efficiency of
Expansion of Scope, a Contraction of
Scope, Compliance Reports, or Increases the review process, which necessitates
tighter timelines, not only for
in Headcount Enrollment
accrediting agencies, but also for
Comments: One commenter stated
Department staff. Additionally,
that the proposed changes could allow
accrediting agencies can continue to
accrediting agencies to easily change
raise issues or concerns related to a final
their scope to avoid Department
staff analysis when appearing before
oversight.
NACIQI and the entirety of the record,
Discussion: The Department believes
including a transcript of the meeting,
that the commenter may have misread
will be available to the senior
the proposed regulations. The
Department official prior to reaching a
regulations increase the types of
decision.
changes to scope reviewed than those
Changes: None.
that were previously reviewed to fully
Comments: One commenter suggested
capture any change in scope. The
the Department first require
regulations also allow for flexibility by
documented findings prior to
the Department to determine when the
undertaking a review under
review of any change in scope is
§ 602.33(a)(2).
reviewed.
Discussion: The commenter is
Changes: None
referencing a subsection of the
Comments: One commenter noted a
regulation that has not been proposed
concern regarding timelines and stated
for change. However, the commenter
their concern that 90 days was not
may wish to review a related change,
sufficient for a review petition, and 45
proposed under § 602.33(c) that would
days for an agency response may also be require the Department to provide an
insufficient.
accrediting agency with documentation
Discussion: The Department believes
concerning an inquiry that arises under
that the commenter may have misread
(a)(2) and provides the agency an
the proposed regulations. The regulation opportunity to respond within a
timelines regarding 90 days and 45 days reasonable period of time.
are related to the review of compliance
Changes: None.
reports, not an agency’s petitions for
Comments: One commenter stated
recognition.
that following the Department’s
Changes: None.
changes, monitoring during the period
of accreditation would become the
§ 602.33 Procedures for Review of
primary means of oversight, and thus inAgencies During the Period of
period monitoring should be
Recognition, Including the Review of
strengthened. The commenter requested
Monitoring Reports
specific data-based triggers for review as
Comments: A few commenters
well as decreasing the maximum period
expressed concerns over the proposed
of recognition.
elimination of the requirement for the
Discussion: The focused review
Department to publish a notice in the
applications, together with the
Federal Register. The notice typically
Department’s ability to investigate
includes an invitation for the public to
issues and appropriately monitor
comment on an agency’s compliance
agencies, ensure sufficient oversight in
with any criteria identified by
any interim period. The Department
Department staff that the agency may
foresees greater emphasis on the review
not be following.
of information received between
Discussion: The Department has not
petition reviews and has appropriately
proposed eliminating the requirement to included processing information for the
finalize an analysis for presentation to
review of agencies during the period of
NACIQI in the event a compliance
recognition. Given that the regulations
concern is identified under the
are meant to be a general framework, the
provisions of § 602.33. Doing so requires Department does hold the ability,
submitting the matter for review in
should the need arise, to provide
accordance with § 602.34, which itself
subregulatory guidance as necessary to
prescribes publication of a notice of the
inform the implementation of the
NACIQI meeting in the Federal Register regulations.
which invites interested parties to make
Changes: None
oral comments.
§ 602.36 Senior Department Official’s
Changes: None.
Decision
Comments: Two commenters
Comments: Two commenters
expressed concerns over the proposal to
expressed concerns related to § 602.36.
shorten the amount of time an
Both commenters expressed concerns
accrediting agency has to provide a
related to recognition of accrediting
response to a staff analysis.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68674

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

agencies that have limited experience.
One of the commenters was also
concerned that allowing the senior
Department official to reach a
recognition decision if a quorum of
NACIQI members is not achieved results
in the Department somehow being able
to pressure accrediting agencies to adopt
the Department’s positions on
compliance matters.
Discussion: Only cross-reference
changes were proposed for § 602.36 in
the NPRM. The Department included a
paragraph in the amendatory language
section of the NPRM for reference
purposes only.
Changes: None.
§ 668.43 Institutional and
Programmatic Information; Reporting
and Disclosure of Information
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern about the
administrative burden associated with
course-specific determinations and
written explanations that would be
required by the regulations prior to
enrollment or financial commitment.
Commenters emphasized these concerns
were specifically formulated based on
smaller or newer institutions without
extensive articulation databases or
dedicated transfer evaluation staff.
Several commenters suggested
permitting standardized, criteria-based
explanations tied to published academic
policies instead of individualized
narratives for each course, technology
and data sharing infrastructure for
resource constrained institutions, and
Statewide articulation agreements and
transfer partnerships between
community colleges and HBCUs. A few
commenters also asked if institutions
were permitted to use categorical rules
for groups of courses—including Bible
and theology courses, core curriculum,
upper-level major requirements, clinical
courses, laboratories, and capstone
experiences—rather than being required
to apply individualized determinations
for each course.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes commenters’ concerns about
administrative burden, but we
emphasize the importance of students
receiving prompt decisions that support
their informed enrollment planning and
reduce uncertainty that may affect
program progression. Institutions may
establish reasonable timelines for
transcript review and course material
evaluation, provided they supply
prospective students with clear and
timely information about credit transfer
policies. Institutions may also use
structured or standardized templates
tied to academic criteria when
explaining course specific denials, so

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

long as the reasoning remains specific
enough for students to understand the
academic basis for determination. This
flexibility supports clarity for students
while accommodating variations in
institutional size and staffing. The
Department also supports efforts by
States, systems, and institutions,
including HBCUs and community
colleges, to build articulation
frameworks that facilitate smoother
transfer and reduce barriers for students.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters asked
the Department to establish a specific
timeframe for when an institution must
receive a student’s transcript to ensure
a timely review, while other
commenters urged the Department to
remove the pre-enrollment disclosure
entirely. These commenters believed it
would lead to rushed, error-prone
evaluations, especially when an official
transcript has not been received. Some
commenters were concerned that
without a defined deadline, students
would not know when they need to
submit their transcripts to allow
sufficient processing time. One
commenter suggested that, similar to the
explicit timeframe for filing an appeal
under § 602.24(e)(5) ‘‘within 15 calendar
days of receipt,’’ § 668.43 should
likewise include a clearly defined
period to provide consistency and
clarity for students.
Discussion: The Department declines
to remove the pre-enrollment disclosure
requirement, and we decline to add a
specific timeframe for transcripts to be
received. The Department believes the
pre-enrollment disclosure requirement
is an essential element in promoting
clarity and avoids situations in which
students enroll without necessary
information about how their earned
credit will apply. Institutions have the
flexibility in designing their transcript
review systems, including assigning
review responsibilities to academic
units in a timely manner, using
structured templates tied to academic
criteria, and adopting technology
solutions and articulation agreements.
Institutions are required to disclose the
date by which a student must submit
transcripts for review in their transfer of
credit policies. This approach provides
transparency while maintaining
flexibility for institutions to account for
differences in program offerings,
enrollment cycles, and administrative
processes. While § 602.24(e)(5) includes
an explicit timeframe for appealing a
transfer of credit denial, ‘‘within 15
calendar days of receipt,’’ that provision
addresses the appeals process rather
than the initial submission of
transcripts. The Department does not

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

believe that applying a uniform Federal
deadline to transcript submission would
appropriately reflect the diversity of
institutional practices or support the
efficient administration of credit
evaluations across institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters urged
the Department to clearly distinguish
between transferability (whether a
course can be accepted for credit) and
applicability (whether the accepted
credit applies to specific degree
requirements). One commenter believes
this distinction will help clarify the
confusing use of ‘‘awarded for courses’’
in § 668.43. A few commenters pointed
out that a credit that transfers as an
unassigned elective does not necessarily
shorten a student’s path to a degree and
that students need to know whether
accepted credits satisfy elective, general
education, or major requirements. One
commenter also urged the Department
to extend disclosures to include
learning earned through registered
apprenticeships. The commenter
recommended that § 668.43(c)(3)(i) read:
‘‘Inform the student of the credit that
will be awarded for courses on that
transcript, inclusive of related technical
instruction as appropriate, and how that
credit will apply toward the student’s
intended program of study, including
whether it satisfies elective, general
education, or major requirements.’’
Discussion: The Department agrees
that transferability and applicability
have distinct meanings and that clarity
between awarding credit and applying
credit is important to help students
make informed decisions about their
educational pathways. § 668.43 ensures
that students receive clear information
about both which credits may be
accepted and how those credits will
apply to the program they intend to
pursue. The regulation does not prohibit
institutions from distinguishing
transferability from applicability in their
policies and the Department encourages
institutions to do so.
The Department acknowledges that
institutions may maintain different
applicability standards across categories
(e.g., major requirements, general
education, electives), as commenters
noted. While the Department supports
expanded transparency regarding credit
for prior learning, including
apprenticeship-related learning, the
Department must also ensure that any
additional disclosure requirements
remain aligned with statutory authority
and are administratively feasible.
Therefore, the Department declines to
revise the regulatory text to incorporate
additional prescriptive applicability
requirements or to mandate specific

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
disclosure language related to
apprenticeships in § 668.43, as these
additions exceed the scope and purpose
of this rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted a
potential contradiction between
§ 668.43(a)(11)(i), which requires
institutions to disclose any criteria used
for evaluating transfer credit, including
identifying types of institutions or
sources from which they will not accept
credit, and the Department’s proposed
prohibition in § 602.24(e)(3) against
denying credit based on the sending
institution. The commenter argued that
§ 668.43(a)(11)(i) implies that
institutions may legitimately refuse
credit from certain sources and asked
for clarification on how both provisions
would function together.
Discussion: The Department does not
view these provisions as contradictory.
The disclosure requirements in
§ 668.43(a)(11)(i) are intended to
promote transparency by ensuring that
students understand the criteria an
institution uses when evaluating
transfer credit. § 602.24(e)(3), by
contrast, addresses the substance of
transfer credit determinations that states
that institutions may not deny transfer
credit solely based on the sending
institution or its recognized accrediting
agency. Institutions remain free to
evaluate transfer credit using
academically relevant factors, including
course content, learning outcomes,
level, applicability to program
requirements, prerequisites, sequencing,
or other legitimate academic
considerations. However, institutions
may not rely exclusively on the identity
of the sending institution or its
recognized accrediting agency as the
basis for denying credit. Accordingly,
the disclosure requirements in
§ 668.43(a)(11)(i) and the requirements
in § 602.24(e)(3) serve complementary
purposes. The former promotes
transparency regarding institutional
policies, while the latter establishes
limits on the criteria that institutions
and accrediting agencies may use in
credit transfer decisions. Institutions
must disclose their transfer of credit
policies, but those policies must remain
consistent with the requirements of
§ 602.24(e)(3).
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
requested that the Department revise the
timing requirement so that institutions
are not required to complete
individualized transfer-credit
determinations before a nonrefundable
enrollment deposit when verified
records or necessary faculty review are
not yet available. Commenters stressed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

the strain institutions may face by
preparing credit transfer determinations
for prospective students who ultimately
may not enroll.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that credit transfer
evaluations can involve complex
academic judgments and that
institutions may require time to obtain
and review official transcripts, course
descriptions, and other supporting
documentation. The Department does
not intend to compel institutions to
make credit transfer determinations
based on incomplete information or to
sacrifice academic rigor in favor of
speed. As noted elsewhere in the
preamble, institutions may establish
reasonable processes and timelines for
transcript review and course evaluation,
provided they furnish students with
clear and timely information regarding
credit transfer policies and
determinations. At the same time, the
Department remains committed to
students receiving meaningful credit
transfer information before making
financial commitments that could
expose them to unexpected costs or
extended time to completion. The
timing requirement will improve
transparency and enable students to
make informed enrollment decisions,
particularly where transferability of
prior coursework may affect educational
affordability and degree progress.
Nothing in the regulation requires
institutions to disregard legitimate
academic review processes or to reach
final determinations in the absence of
information necessary for an accurate
evaluation. Further, the Department
expects institutions to communicate
clearly to students when a
determination remains pending because
additional documentation or faculty
review is required. The Department
continues to believe that students
should receive credit transfer
information before enrollment,
registration, or other significant
financial commitments whenever
reasonably possible while preserving
institutional discretion to conduct
appropriate academic reviews.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested
that, in addition to disclosing credit
transfer policies and evaluation criteria,
institutions should also transparently
disclose all critical information about
transfer practices, including decisionmaking authority and workflows,
timelines, and appeal processes.
Another commenter argued that also
institutions should distinguish direct
equivalency, general-education credit,
elective credit, and rejected credit in
student notices.

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68675

Discussion: The Department is
mindful of the need to balance
transparency with regulatory flexibility.
Institutions vary significantly in their
governance structures, credit transfer
review processes, academic programs,
and administrative systems. The
Department does not believe it is
necessary to prescribe specific
disclosure formats or require
institutions to provide detailed
descriptions of all internal workflows
and decision-making processes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the
Department to consider publishing
transfer credit data in a publicly
accessible database, stating that metrics
could include the percentages of credits
that are accepted and denied at each
institution per year.
Discussion: The Department notes
that the regulations in this final rule are
focused on institutional and accrediting
agency requirements regarding credit
transfer policies, disclosures, and
decision-making processes. The
regulations do not establish Federal
reporting requirements for institutionlevel transfer of credit acceptance and
denial rates, nor do they create a
framework for the collection, validation,
and publication of such data. The
Department may continue to explore
opportunities to improve information
available to students regarding transfer
outcomes and student mobility, but
such efforts are beyond the scope of this
rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the
Department to eliminate § 668.43
(a)(11)(ii) and (v). The commenter
argued that paragraph (ii) is too broad,
and that paragraph (v) is too narrow to
be meaningful. The commenter noted
that § 668.43 (a)(11)(v) would only
apply to the Workforce Pell Grant
program where non-credit programs are
required to be accepted for credit in at
least one certificate or degree program.
Discussion: The Department does not
agree that § 668.43(a)(11)(ii) is
unnecessarily broad. The purpose of
this provision is to ensure that
prospective and current students have
access to clear information regarding the
criteria institutions use when evaluating
transfer credit. Transparency regarding
institutional policies and practices
enables students to make informed
enrollment and transfer decisions. The
Department also disagrees that
§ 668.43(a)(11)(v) lacks value. Although
the commenter notes that the provision
may be particularly relevant in contexts
involving Workforce Pell, information
about whether an institution recognizes
or articulates non-degree and non-credit

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68676

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

learning may be important to students
seeking pathways from workforce
training, certificate programs, prior
learning experiences, or other
educational experiences into degree
programs. Providing this information
promotes transparency and may help
students better understand
opportunities for academic progression
before making enrollment decisions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the
Department to clarify what counts as a
‘‘nonrefundable financial commitment’’,
specifically when a refund is required
on tuition payment, payment plan,
required deposits, and application fees.
The commenter asked whether the
relevant date for refund on tuition is the
date payment is due, is made (if the
individual pays after the due date), or
the date after which a full refund is no
longer available. For a refund on a
payment plan, the commenter asked if
an individual establishes a payment
plan months before classes begin, does
that constitute a nonrefundable
financial commitment? The commenter
also asked if the plan provides a
generous refund option when
enrollment changes but imposes a small
cancellation fee, does that fee trigger a
nonrefundable financial commitment?
Additionally, the commenter asked if a
payment plan would only constitute a
nonrefundable financial commitment if
the institution itself manages the plan,
or would it also constitute a
nonrefundable financial commitment if
the plan is managed by a third party?
The commenter also asked if a deposit
is refundable, would the Department no
longer consider it a financial
commitment for purposes of these
regulations? As for application fees, the
commenter asserted that they don’t
believe it should count as a
nonrefundable financial commitment to
the institution.
Additionally, the commenter asked if
an institution provides a refund option
when a learner declines enrollment
because transfer credit is denied, would
that remove the payment from the
definition of a ‘‘non-refundable
financial commitment’’? The commenter
also asked if a learner voluntarily makes
a nonrefundable financial commitment
after being informed of the right to
receive transfer-related information, but
before an established deadline, would
the institution be out of compliance if
it had not completed the transfer credit
review, or would the institution have to
decline the payment? The commenter
also requested that the Department
elaborate on how these final rules
would apply to foreign transcripts. The
commenter asked if the implementation

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

of this requirement differs based on the
learner’s status?
Discussion: The Department does not
believe that it is necessary to prescribe
in regulation every institutional practice
relating to tuition payments, payment
plans, deposits, application fees, or
other enrollment-related charges.
Whether a particular payment or
obligation constitutes a nonrefundable
financial commitment depends on the
facts and circumstances of the
arrangement and whether the student
may recover the funds or terminate the
obligation without financial loss.
Generally, the relevant consideration is
the point at which a student becomes
subject to a charge, fee, deposit, or other
obligation that is not fully refundable or
otherwise cannot be avoided.
Changes: None.
Comments: The commenter
recommended removing the terms
‘‘enrollment’’ and ‘‘registration’’ from
the disclosure requirements to make
clear that the priority is protecting
students from making nonrefundable
financial commitments before they have
the information needed to make an
informed enrollment decision.
Discussion: The Department declines
to remove the references to
‘‘enrollment’’ and ‘‘registration’’ from
the disclosure requirements. The
Department’s objective is to ensure that
prospective students receive important
transfer of credit and consumer
information before taking significant
steps toward enrollment, including
signing an enrollment agreement,
completing registration, or making a
nonrefundable financial commitment.
The inclusion of enrollment and
registration, in addition to
nonrefundable financial commitments,
recognizes that institutions use different
admissions, enrollment, and registration
processes and that students may become
committed to attending an institution
through mechanisms other than the
payment of a nonrefundable fee.
Changes: None.
Comments: The commenter argued
that § 668.43(c) is inconsistent with the
organization of the existing regulations.
The commenter noted that § 668.43(c)
currently addresses requirements
related to programs that prepare
students for State licensure or
certification. The commenter is
concerned that adding new
requirements to the same subsection
could create confusion about whether
they are related to licensure or
certification or are separate
requirements applicable more broadly.
For clarity, the commenter
recommended placing the new
requirements in a new § 668.43(d) and

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

redesignating current § 668.43(d) as
§ 668.43(e).
Discussion: The Department does not
believe that relocating these provisions
to a separate subsection is necessary.
The Department notes that regulations
frequently contain multiple related
requirements within a single section,
and the structure of § 668.43 is intended
to consolidate disclosure obligations
applicable to prospective and enrolled
students. The final rule clearly
identifies the transfer of credit review
requirements as distinct provisions
within § 668.43(c), and the Department
believes that the regulatory text
sufficiently distinguishes those
requirements from the licensure and
certification disclosures. As a result,
institutions and students will be able to
understand that the transfer of credit
requirements apply independently of
the licensure-related disclosures. This
organization also preserves the overall
structure of § 668.43 and avoids
unnecessary redesignation of existing
provisions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter is
concerned that § 668.43(c)(3)(iii) is
confusing. The commenter pointed out
that not every credit transfer denial
corresponds directly to a course offered
at the receiving institution or that
institutions deny credit to require
learners to retake their version of a
course. The commenter noted that
residency requirements may mandate
students to complete a certain number
of credits at the degree-granting
institution and a transfer student who
changes majors may have credits that no
longer apply to the learner’s course of
study.
Discussion: The regulation does not
intend to suggest that every credit
transfer denial is based on the existence
of an equivalent course at the receiving
institution or that institutions deny
credit solely to require a student to
complete the institution’s version of a
course. The purpose of § 668.43(c)(3)(iii)
is to promote transparency by ensuring
that students receive a written
explanation when credit is not awarded
and information that helps them
understand the institution’s credit
transfer evaluation process. The
Department believes that providing
students with a clear rationale for why
credit was not awarded is particularly
important because credit transfer
determinations may be based on a wide
range of academic and institutional
considerations. As discussed elsewhere
in this rulemaking, institutions are
required to provide a written
explanation as to why they declined to
award credit and provide information

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
and examples of courses that otherwise
would be awarded credit. This
requirement is intended to assist
students in understanding the
institution’s standards and practices
rather than to imply that every denied
credit has a direct equivalent within the
institution’s curriculum.
The Department further notes that the
regulation does not prohibit institutions
from explaining that a credit was
accepted but did not apply toward
specific degree requirements, or that a
credit was not awarded due to residency
requirements, program requirements,
changes in a student’s course of study,
or other legitimate academic reasons.
Institutions retain discretion to apply
their academic policies and degree
requirements, provided they clearly
communicate the basis for their
determinations to students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
recommended adding a new
§ 668.43(a)(11)(vi) to read: ‘‘The
institution’s existing transfer of credit
determinations, published in a publicly
accessible location on the institution’s
website. For each determination, the
institution must identify the sending
institution, the sending institution’s
course identifier and title, and how the
institution treated the course: the
specific course equivalency awarded,
the type of credit awarded where no
specific equivalency has been
established (such as elective credit), or
a statement that the institution declined
to award credit. The institution must
publish these determinations in the
form in which it maintains them,
updated no less often than annually.
The determinations published under
this paragraph consist of course-level
and institution-level information only
and must not include personally
identifiable information about any
student. Nothing in this paragraph
requires an institution to adopt a
particular format or data standard, to
create determinations it has not made,
or to represent that a published
determination will apply to any
particular student. The determinations
must be accessible without a login,
account, application, fee, or agreement
to terms of use, and an institution that
licenses a third party to maintain its
determinations remains responsible for
their publication under this paragraph.’’
Discussion: The Department believes
that the final regulation appropriately
balances transparency for students with
institutional flexibility by requiring
institutions to disclose their transfer of
credit policies, the criteria used to
evaluate transfer credit, any categories
of institutions or sources from which

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

credit will not be accepted, applicable
transcript-submission deadlines,
articulation agreements, and
information about transfer-credit
determinations made for individual
students who timely submit transcripts.
The Department’s focus in these
regulations is ensuring that prospective
students receive institution-specific
information relevant to their own
educational records before signing an
enrollment agreement, completing
registration, or making a nonrefundable
financial commitment. The Department
does not believe that requiring
institutions to publish all prior credit
transfer determinations is necessary to
achieve that objective.
Changes: None.
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Regulatory Planning and Review
Including Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and subject to
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that
may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for
which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President’s
priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive Order, as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the
Administrator of OIRA in each case.
As indicated in the Net Budget Impact
section of this RIA, the Department
estimates that there will be no
significant change in transfers between
the Federal government and student
loan borrowers and Pell Grant recipients
as a result of the final rule. Quantified
annualized costs include updates and
reporting costs for accrediting agencies,
institutions, and individuals detailed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68677

this final rule of $3.4241 million and
$3.8180 million at 3 percent and 7
percent discounting, respectively.
Therefore, based on our estimates of
quantified and non-quantified costs and
benefits, OIRA has determined that this
regulation is significant under Section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and
subject to OMB review.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
considering—among other things and to
the extent practicable—the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ OIRA has
emphasized that these techniques may
include ‘‘identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.’’
Executive Order 14192 directs
agencies of the executive branch to be
prudent and financially responsible in
the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources, and to
alleviate unnecessary regulatory
burdens placed on the American people.
This action is not expected to be
considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 14192 because it
imposes no more than de minimis net
regulatory costs.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68678

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Consistent with OMB Circular A–4,
we compare the final rule to the current
regulations. In this regulatory impact
analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, potential costs and
benefits, net budget impacts, and the
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Elsewhere in this section under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens
specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
a. Need for Regulatory Action

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

The Department proposes this
regulatory action to align the Secretary
of Education’s (Secretary) criteria for
recognition of accrediting agencies to
promote high-quality, high-value, and
affordable education for students as
outlined in E.O. 14279, titled
‘‘Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen
Higher Education,’’ issued on April 23,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

2025, by President Trump.13 E.O. 14279
directs the Secretary to take several
actions related to the Department’s
recognition of accrediting agencies or
associations to ensure agency standards
and enforcement actions are focused on
student outcomes and free from
unlawful discrimination and other
potential violations of Federal and State
law.
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA), requires the Secretary
to establish criteria for determining
whether an accrediting agency is a
reliable authority, for purposes of the
HEA and for other Federal purposes, on
the quality of education or training
offered by the institutions or programs
that they accredit. Consistent with the
statute, the Secretary has established
regulations for recognition of
13 Executive Order 14279. ‘‘Reforming
Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.’’ The
White House. April 23, 2025. www.whitehouse.gov/
presidential-actions/2025/04/reformingaccreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/.

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

accrediting agencies and has revised
these regulations periodically.
The final reduces barriers that limit
competition among accrediting agencies
and recognition of new accrediting
agencies. Similarly, via changes to
accrediting agency requirements, the
final rule will likely increase
educational innovation and foster new
education models that advance
credential and degree completion. To
improve student outcomes on student
loan repayment, graduate earnings, and
financial value and affordability, the
final rule requires that recognized
accrediting agencies assess member
institutions on program-level student
outcomes, without reference to race,
ethnicity, or sex.
b. Summary of Comments and Changes
From the NPRM
Table 2.1 provides a summary of the
proposed provisions.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68679

ER30OC26.000</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.001</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68680

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68681

ER30OC26.002</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.003</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68682

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68683

ER30OC26.004</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Summary of Comments From the NPRM
The Department received comments
related to the Regulatory Impact
Analysis in the NPRM. This section
responds to these comments. Some
commenters submitted alternatives that
were substantially similar to remarks
submitted by other commenters; in
these cases, we grouped those
comments and responded to them
collectively.
Comments: One commenter argued
that the Department had not produced
sufficient analyses to substantiate its
claims that the proposed rule would
help lower college costs and prices for
students.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the credit transfer policies in the
proposed and final rule will help reduce
costs for students. The Department
included an analysis in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis in the proposed rule
that showed how many students and
Title IV aid dollars could potentially be
affected when a greater share of
students’ credits transfer when they
change institutions. However, that
analysis did not estimate potential
changes in total or per-student aid
distributions.
Changes: The Department has
expanded the data and analysis
regarding credit transfer to estimate
reductions in Title IV aid disbursements
due to the credit transfer policies in this
final rule. These estimates help to
illustrate the potential savings to both
taxpayers and students that are likely to
result from the credit transfer policies in
this final rule.
Comments: The Department received
several comments raising concerns that
women, students from minority groups,
and low-income students will be
disproportionately and negatively
affected by the proposed rule.
Commenters argued that these students
will lose access to educational
opportunities due to the proposed rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Discussion: The Department
disagrees. The Department believes that
the final rule will help create greater
educational opportunities by fostering
innovation and new educational
delivery models. The Department has
included additional analysis in this
final rule that estimates the potential
growth in short-term credential
programs and exclusively online
programs as a proxy for the increased
educational opportunities that are likely
to arise under the final rule. Data from
the National Postsecondary Student Aid
Study show that women represent a
larger share of enrollment in these
programs compared with other
programs. Black students are also more
likely to enroll in short-term programs
than are other groups. The data
therefore suggest that the final rule will,
in fact, increase education opportunities
for certain groups of students.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued
that the Department failed to consider
the effects of the proposed rule on
different sectors of higher education and
requested that the Department consider
these differentiated effects.
Discussion: The Department included
a breakdown of the effects on different
sectors of higher education in various
sections of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis in the NPRM. The analysis
detailing Title IV aid disbursements
made to transfer students (which the
Department has expanded in the final
rule to include estimates of potential
changes in disbursements) is broken out
by public, private non-profit, and
private for-profit institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter noted
that community colleges serve different
students than other sectors of higher
education and recommended that the
Department allow accrediting agencies
to use different outcome measures for
evaluating programs at community
colleges than for other institutions.

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Discussion: The final rule requires
accrediting agencies to review their
criteria for assessing whether an
institution is successful in achieving its
stated objectives at both the institutional
and program levels, including minimum
expectations regarding student
outcomes. The Department notes that
accrediting agencies have wide latitude
in determining expectations for student
outcomes and can tailor those measures
to community colleges and their
students or specific programs and
enrollment patterns if they deem it
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters
raised concerns that the proposed rule
would encourage accrediting agencies to
use students’ post-enrollment earnings
to assess whether an institution or
program is successful in achieving its
stated objectives. Commenters argued
that earnings vary by field of study,
geography, labor markets, and other
factors and are therefore an unreliable
proxy of educational quality. Other
commenters argued that only long-term
earnings, for which data are difficult to
obtain, are appropriate for measuring
outcomes.
Discussion: The Department believes
that post-enrollment earnings can be
one of many valuable measures of
whether an institution or program meets
quality standards and stated objectives.
Moreover, these data are increasingly
available and reliable. The Department
notes, however, that under the final
rule, accrediting agencies maintain
considerable discretion in how they
develop and apply standards using
earnings outcomes. The final rule does
not prevent accrediting agencies from
considering the issues that the
commenters raise.
Changes: None.
Comments: A commenter raised
concerns that institutions of higher
education lack access to comprehensive
and reliable data on retention,
completion, and post-enrollment

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.005</GPH>

68684

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

outcomes of their students and would
therefore not be able to meet any
accreditation requirements on these
factors.
Discussion: The Department notes
that institutions of higher education
already report significant data and
statistics on student completion and
retention rates to the Department and to
other agencies. This RIA also includes
analyses of outcomes by accrediting
agency that were produced using public
data, further demonstrating that these
data are available. Moreover, the
Department of Education will publish
annual statistics on the earnings of
program completers drawn from Federal
tax records (who are Title IV recipients)
starting in 2027, which could serve as
additional outcome information for
institutions, programs, and accrediting
agencies.
Changes: None.
c. Discussion of Cost, Benefits, and
Transfers
The final rule will likely affect
students, institutions of higher
education, accrediting agencies, and the
Federal government. The Department
expects students and the Federal
government to benefit from the final
rule. The final rule is likely to impose
new costs on institutions and
accrediting agencies.
This analysis focuses on four major
policy areas within the final rule that
are likely to have the most significant
costs and benefits:
(1) changes to accrediting agencies’
transfer of credit policies;
(2) a new requirement that agencies
adopt policies that assess program-level
student outcomes;
(3) regulatory changes that will allow
for greater competition among existing
and newly recognized accrediting
agencies; and
(4) reforms that align accreditation
standards with efforts to reduce college
costs and credential inflation.
We discuss the costs and benefits
associated with each of these areas
below. The Department notes that there
is little critical data available on which
to base estimates of the proposed
regulation’s effect on the accrediting
agency marketplace and responses by
institutions and students. For this
regulatory impact analysis, the
Department has relied primarily on the
publicly available Database of
Accredited Postsecondary Institutions
and Programs (DAPIP) and its own
administrative data on title IV, HEA
student aid recipients in the National
Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) and
the Common Origination and
Disbursement (COD) System.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Transfer of Credit
The final regulation would make it
easier for students to transfer credits to
continue their postsecondary
enrollment at a new institution. Under
Section 602.24(e)(3), accrediting
agencies would be required to ensure
member institutions adopt several
policies regarding transfer of credit that
should increase the number of credits
students are able to retain when
transferring to a new institution. For
example, the final rule would require
that accrediting agencies prohibit an
institution from denying transfer of
credit based on the recognition of the
institution, or type of institution, at
which the student completed the
coursework, so long as the agency
accrediting that institution is recognized
by the Secretary. Accrediting agencies
must also require an institution to
award transfer credit for undergraduate
programs for coursework that has been
successfully completed at another
institution, is accredited by an agency
recognized by the Secretary, and is
comparable in content and learning
outcomes to the institution’s own course
offerings, unless the institution provides
a written basis for denial.
Students could benefit from these
changes because they may spend less
time and money retaking courses that
failed to transfer. A 2017 study by the
U.S. Government Accountability Office
using Department of Education data
found that transfer students typically
lose 43 percent of their credits when
they transfer.14 Under the proposed
rule, it is more likely that students will
retain more of their credits earned at
prior institutions, allowing them to
complete their postsecondary education
faster.
It is difficult to estimate the precise
effect this policy may have on
enrollment and title IV, HEA student aid
disbursements, and the Department
acknowledges a variety of outcomes
could occur. First, the policy may
induce more students to enroll in higher
education because students will have
more flexibility to switch programs
without losing a substantial amount of
credit earned at prior institutions. The
policy may also reduce the dropout rate
as students are able to maintain more of
their prior credits when transferring,
thereby reducing the total cost and
enrollment duration of their program
which should facilitate credential
14 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report
to Congressional Requesters, ‘‘Higher Education:
Students Need More Information to Help Reduce
Challenges in Transferring College Credits’’, GAO–
17–574, August 14, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-17-574.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68685

completion. It may also make transfer
more desirable, allowing students to
better match themselves to different
programs and enhancing their ability to
continue their education. If this occurs,
the policy may ultimately increase
enrollment and title IV, HEA student aid
disbursements, imposing new costs on
taxpayers and the Federal government.
Additionally, higher education
institutions may benefit, as they would
likely receive additional revenues due
to higher enrollment levels.
Alternatively, the policy may result in
a reduction in title IV, HEA
disbursements, providing a benefit to
the Federal government and taxpayers
and a new cost for higher education
institutions. This would occur if higher
education enrollment remains constant
and if the proposed provision allows
students to finish their credentials
faster, resulting in fewer title IV, HEA
disbursements. If this occurs,
institutions may experience costs
because their transfer students will
likely spend less time enrolled (because
they will not need to retake the credits
that the institution previously did not
accept in the transfer).
To better understand the potential
impact of the transfer of credit policies
for accrediting agencies in this rule, the
Department is providing information
from the National Student Loan Data
System on the number of undergraduate
students who transferred institutions
between the 2023–24 and 2024–25
award years and the title IV, HEA
student aid they received. This
information is presented in Tables 3.1
and 3.2. Specifically, Table 3.1 shows
that, between the 2023–24 and 2024–25
award year, a total of 1.8 million title IV,
HEA students transferred institutions,
and among those students, roughly 60
percent received title IV, HEA student
aid in the award year they transferred
(2024–25). Table 3.2 shows that these
title IV, HEA recipients received a total
of $8.8 billion in title IV, HEA funds at
their new institution in 2024–25, or an
average of approximately $8,300 per
transfer student.
While the Department lacks readily
available data to determine how much
title IV, HEA disbursements could
change due to the transfer of credit
provisions, these data help establish a
method to gauge the potential impact for
both students and taxpayers. For
example, if the Department assumes that
43 percent of title IV, HEA student aid
received by transfer students was spent
covering tuition and fees for course
credits that failed to transfer (which is
what prior research indicates is the
average share of credits that fail to
transfer), and under further assumptions

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

that overall enrollment remains constant
and transfer students do not change
other aspects of their enrollment
behavior, this would suggest that title
IV, HEA disbursements would decline
by an average of approximately $3,600
per transfer student during the 2024–25
award year if 100 percent of the lost
credits now successfully transfer.
Less than 100 percent of credits may
transfer, however, in cases where
institutions provide written reasoning
for denying credit based on the credit

failing to meet institutional standards.
In Table 3.3, the Department estimates
the potential reduction in title IV, HEA
student aid disbursements that could
occur under different scenarios
depending on the extent to which
institutions utilize their ability to deny
credit transfer through written
statements. Specifically, the table
provides a range of potential reductions
in disbursements under a scenario
where all, three quarters, and half of
credits that did not transfer in the past

now transfer.15 We estimate that title IV
disbursements would decline by $3.8
billion annually if 100 percent of credits
that students typically lost when
transferring are now successfully
accepted by institutions and students
spend less time enrolled re-taking
classes and course work. Comparatively,
if only half of credits that were typically
lost during transfer are successfully
accepted, we estimate that title IV
disbursements would decline by $1.9
billion annually.

15 For these estimates, we begin with the
assumption that 43 percent of credits are currently
lost at transfer, which is the average found by the
GAO. Further, we assume no other changes occur

in student enrollment and borrowing decisions.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to
Congressional Requesters, ‘‘Higher Education:
Students Need More Information to Help Reduce

Challenges in Transferring College Credits’’, GAO–
17–574, August 14, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-17-574.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.006</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68686

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68687

ER30OC26.007</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Standards for Program-Level Student
Outcomes
Under the final regulation, accrediting
agencies are required to review the use
of additional student outcome metrics
in their standards for institutions. Under
Section 602.17, accrediting agencies
must review their criteria for assessing
whether an institution is successful in
achieving its stated objectives at both
the institutional and program levels,
including minimum expectations
regarding student outcomes such as
graduation rates, post-completion
employment and educational and
economic returns using earnings data
for former students relative to the total
cost of attendance.
Requiring accrediting agencies to
review their standards and criteria may
impose new costs on both accrediting
agencies and institutions. Some
accrediting agencies may review their
usage of student outcome criteria and
ultimately make no adjustments to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

standards they use because they have
found, in their evaluation, that their
standards are sufficiently rigorous and
properly evaluate student success. In
these cases, the cost to accrediting
agencies and institutions is likely to be
small.
In other cases, accrediting agencies
may review and then adopt new
standards related to student outcomes
for the institutions they accredit.
Agencies that choose this action may
experience costs from several factors.
First, for agencies that do not have a
mechanism in place to assess the
student success metrics of the
institutions or programs they accredit,
they will need to develop these new
standards and apply them routinely in
the accreditation process. Second,
accrediting agencies may also need to
develop systems and processes that
allow them to collect new data from
institutions, and to invest in new
analytical capacity to assess the extent

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that institutions meet minimum
requirements related to student
outcomes.
Institutions accredited by agencies
who review and adopt new standards
may also incur new costs as those
institutions work to comply with the
new standards and requirements from
their accrediting agency. This is likely
to include new reporting costs between
institutions and accrediting agencies.
Institutions are also likely to incur costs
as they work to change and improve any
programs that fail to achieve compliance
with any new standards related to
student achievement imposed by an
accrediting agency. Some institutions
may ultimately decide to close
noncompliant programs, which will also
cause institutions to incur new costs,
both in operational costs to shutter a
program, and in reduced enrollment and
revenue associated with those closed
programs.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.008</GPH>

68688

68689

Accrediting agencies have
considerable discretion in designing
their own standards regarding student
outcomes under the final regulation,
and the Department cannot anticipate
which metrics agencies will consider
revising or adopting when making
determinations regarding recognition.
This makes it difficult for the
Department to estimate the impact of
the proposed change. To inform the
potential impact of the requirement, the
Department compiled data on the
variation in several student outcome
metrics among institutions accredited
by seven institutional accrediting
agencies.16 These metrics include
graduation rates, post-enrollment

earnings, and student loan delinquency
rates. Data were drawn from DAPIP, the
College Scorecard, and the Program
Participation Data 2026 file released for
the Accountability in Higher Education
and Access Through Demand-Driven
(AHEAD) rulemaking. The results are
presented in Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
These box plots show the variation in
student outcomes for institutions
recognized by the same accrediting
agency.
These figures show a wide variation
in student outcome metrics among the
institutions each agency accredits. For
example, the Higher Learning
Commission recognizes both
institutions with near perfect graduation

rates and institutions with graduation
rates well below 20 percent. The Higher
Learning Commission also accredits
institutions with both extremely high
(over 80 percent) and very low student
loan delinquency rates. The variation in
outcomes across institutions recognized
by the same agency suggest that, in
practice, accrediting agencies have few
meaningful standards on student
outcomes. If the final rule results in
agencies adopting more rigorous or
consistent standards, some institutions
or programs might be at risk of
noncompliance and could therefore face
pressure to improve or risk losing
recognition.

16 These include the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges, Higher Learning
Commission, Middle States Commission on Higher

Education, New England Commission of Higher
Education, Northwest Commission on Colleges and

Universities, and Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools Commission on Colleges.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.009</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

68690

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.010</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Accrediting Agency Competition and
New Agencies
The final rule will remove barriers for
new accrediting agencies to emerge and
obtain Department recognition.
Specifically, the rule simplifies and
streamlines the Department’s
regulations for recognition and review
of accrediting agencies, including
eliminating superfluous requirements
for recognition of new accrediting
agencies that reduce competition and
institutional choices when selecting an
accrediting agency. The final rule also
simplifies procedures for institutions to
change accrediting agencies so that
institutions are not forced to comply
with standards that are antithetical to
their values and missions. For example,
the rule would remove the Department’s
current requirement that an accrediting
agency grant or deny accreditation or
preaccreditation to an institution for at

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

least two years prior to seeking
recognition by the Department. This
two-year requirement is not statutory
and represents an unnecessary burden
for new accrediting agencies. Similarly,
the final rule streamlines the process for
institutions to change accrediting
agencies by clarifying that the Secretary
may not delay, condition, or otherwise
adversely affect an institution’s
participation in the title IV, HEA
programs solely because the institution
seeks accreditation from, or changes
accreditation to, another agency
recognized by the Secretary. Under
Section 602.13, the final regulation also
specifies that recognition by the
Department does not confer immunity
from antitrust laws, which may further
stimulate competition among
accrediting agencies.
Reducing barriers to entry may also
facilitate innovation by making it easier
for new accrediting agencies to emerge

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68691

and for institutions offering new
educational models to obtain
appropriate accreditation. To the extent
such models attract students who
receive Pell Grants or Federal student
loans, the rule could affect Federal
student aid outlays. The Department has
provided estimates for the potential
increases in enrollment and title IV,
HEA student aid disbursements that
could arise from new models and
innovations. These estimates, which are
based on historical growth rates among
short-term certificate programs and
exclusively online programs, are
discussed later in this Regulatory
Impact Analysis and are shown in
Tables 3.6 and 3.7.
The Department also believes that
reducing barriers to entry may improve
accreditation by increasing
contestability in the market for
accrediting services. Contestability
refers to the extent to which potential

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.011</GPH>

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

68692

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

competitors can realistically enter a
market and existing customers can
switch providers, even if relatively few
firms currently compete or customers
actually switch. Economic theory
suggests that incumbent organizations
respond not only to actual competition
but also to the credible possibility of
new entry or customer mobility.
Baumol’s theory of contestable markets
predicts that reducing barriers to entry
encourages incumbent firms to improve
quality, reduce unnecessary costs, and
become more responsive to consumers,
while Demsetz emphasized that
competition for a market can discipline
incumbent firms even in concentrated
industries. See William J. Baumol,
‘‘Contestable Markets: An Uprising in
the Theory of Industry Structure,’’ 72
American Economic Review 1 (1982);
Harold Demsetz, ‘‘Why Regulate
Utilities?,’’ 11 Journal of Law and
Economics 55 (1968). The Department
believes that reducing unnecessary
barriers to the recognition of new
accrediting agencies and facilitating
institutional mobility among recognized
agencies is therefore likely to improve
accrediting agency performance even if
relatively few institutions ultimately
change accrediting agencies.
Accordingly, to the extent that these
changes increase the credible possibility
of new accrediting agency entry or
institutional mobility, economic theory
suggests they may improve accrediting
agency performance even if relatively

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

few institutions ultimately change
accrediting agencies.
Although the Department lacks
sufficient data to estimate how these
changes will affect the accreditation
marketplace, the changes will likely
increase the number of institutional
accrediting agencies recognized by the
Department and may increase the
number of institutions seeking to change
agencies. To provide context regarding
the potential impact of the changes, the
Department used information from
DAPIP to examine the growth and
contraction in the number of
institutional accrediting agencies and
the rate and number of institutions that
switch agencies over time. This analysis
adds evidence to the Department’s view
that both new accrediting agency
recognition and changes in agency by
institutions are rare. For example,
Figure 3.4 and Table 3.4 show that there
has been little change in the number of
institutional accrediting agencies over
the past 30 years, and that in recent
decades the number of recognized
agencies has actually declined, despite
the large increases in higher education
enrollment over this time. Additionally,
Table 3.5 shows that since 2020, only 10
institutions have voluntarily switched
from one of the agencies formerly
known as a regional accrediting agency,
and that fewer than 50 have ever
voluntarily switched away from these
accrediting agencies.
One of the key goals of the final rule
is that, through reforms to reduce

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

burden and enhance competition among
accrediting agencies, more institutional
agencies will choose to be recognized
and greater numbers of institutions will
decide to change institutional
accrediting agencies, thereby enhancing
competition. While prior regulatory
reforms may not have resulted in a
descriptive change in the number of
accrediting agencies and amount of
accrediting agency switching that takes
place (see Figure 3.4 and Table 3.5), the
final rule includes additional provisions
aimed at spurring competition, which
may ultimately enhance the ability for
accrediting agencies to enter and
institutions to switch. Specifically, the
reduction in time from initial petition to
review for recognition by the senior
Department official is likely to
ultimately result in additional
accrediting agencies applying for
recognition, providing more options for
institutions. These proposed changes
also coincide with regulatory efforts by
some States that require the State’s
institutions to switch accrediting
bodies. Ultimately, accrediting agencies
may benefit from the final rule because
they will likely experience less burden
to gain initial recognition and maintain
recognition. Institutions, similarly,
could benefit from these regulations if
they value the ability to choose from a
greater number of potential agencies, or
if the new agencies that may emerge are
better aligned with the institution’s
mission.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.013</GPH>

68693

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.012</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Affordability and Innovation
The Department’s final rule would
require accrediting agencies to adopt
several new policies and procedures
that aim to increase college
affordability. Specifically, under Section
602.17 (Application of standards in
reaching accreditation decisions), the
final rule would require accrediting
agencies to consider efficiency in their
review of institutions and to conduct
cost-benefit analyses to ensure
institutions’ activities justify the
associated financial, administrative and
opportunity costs, and the impact of
capital expenditures on future operating
expenses. Such analyses could put
downward pressure on institutional
costs and, by extension, tuition prices.
If some institutions prove to be
incapable of conducting credible cost/
benefit analyses, the number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

accredited institutions could fall, but
this is unlikely.
Similarly, the final rule could put
downward pressure on student costs by
helping to reduce excessive program
length by requiring that accrediting
agencies apply standards that ensure
program length is appropriate to the
objectives of the program and credential
awarded at the institution. The final
rule also aims to reduce credential
inflation and prevent agencies from
restricting institutions from offering
short-term programs, which may help
reduce costs for students because they
will be able to pursue fewer or shorter
credentials to work in a given
occupation. This may ultimately
increase enrollment and title IV, HEA
student aid disbursements if more
students pursue postsecondary
education as a result of the improved
affordability and reduced time to
completion.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

The final rule would also specify in
Section 602.17 that accrediting agencies’
standards related to student
achievement may include credit for
prior learning. Granting credits for prior
learning should reduce costs for
students because it allows them to earn
credit from skills obtained outside the
institution, such as service in the armed
forces, employment, or other
demonstrated competency.
While these provisions would likely
provide benefits to students through
lower prices and less time enrolled, they
could also reduce revenues for
institutions and transfers of Federal title
IV, HEA funds to institutions.
Institutions may therefore bear
additional costs as they adjust their
programs and policies to align with new
accreditation standards. Accrediting
agencies will bear new costs as they
work to incorporate these proposed

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.014</GPH>

68694

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
changes into their standards and
practices.
The final rule includes several
provisions that ensure accrediting
agencies do not unnecessarily constrain
innovations that could further reduce
costs to students and institutions, and
may also increase program quality. For
example, Section 602.15
(Administrative and fiscal
responsibilities) would be amended to
require that accrediting agencies
provide training to all agency
representatives and staff that includes
topics related to best practices in
various educational delivery methods,
models, and modalities; innovative or
lower-cost educational delivery models
that may provide high-quality education
to students; and avoiding unnecessary
costs to institutions in the accreditation
process. These innovations may make
higher education more accessible for
students, thereby increasing
postsecondary enrollment and title IV,
HEA student aid disbursements.
The Department has estimated the
potential increase in enrollment and
title IV, HEA student aid disbursements
that could result from the innovations
that the final rule helps facilitate.
Specifically, the Department examined
historical enrollment growth rates
among short-term certificate programs
and, separately, the growth rates among
exclusively online programs (excluding
changes in exclusively online programs
during the COVID–19 pandemic).17 The

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

17 The Department analyzed historical growth
rates using Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) data. To calculate growth rates in
exclusively online programs, we used IPEDS data
on distance enrollment from 2012–13 to 2024–25.
For each academic year, we calculated the average
share of degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate
and graduate students enrolled exclusively in
online programs. We then computed the annual
percent change in the share of students in
exclusively online programs for each year from
2013–14 to 2024–25. We acknowledge that between
2019 and 2020, the distance enrollment IPEDS file
changed from Fall Enrollment to 12-Month FTE
enrollment; however, the change in definition does

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

Department used these two categories as
proxies for innovative educational
models, although the Department
acknowledges that innovation can take
many forms not necessarily captured in
these categories. Given the uncertainty
around potential innovations that may
arise under the final rule, the
Department has produced estimates
using a low, medium, and high
enrollment growth rate.18 After
calculating the historical growth rates,
the Department then used data on title
IV, HEA student aid disbursements (Pell
Grants and student loans) made to
students in 2023–24 (for students in
exclusively online programs) and 2024–
25 (for students in short-term certificate
programs).19
not influence our estimates because we compute
annual percent changes, and we exclude this year
due to its overlap with the Covid–19 pandemic. To
calculate growth rates in short-term programs, we
used IPEDS data on student charges for vocational
programs from 2014–15 to 2023–24, the most recent
year of data available at the time when this analysis
was conducted. We defined short term programs as
programs that were at least 600 clock hours in
length but shorter than 12 months. After identifying
this set of programs, we then merged this IPEDS
data to Department data on title IV enrollments
using common OPEID6, credential level, and 6-digit
CIP codes. We then calculated the annual percent
change in title IV enrollment for each award year
between 2014–15 and 2023–24.
18 For exclusively online programs, the minimum
growth rate was 1.7 percent; the median growth rate
(excluding Covid–19 years), was 5.2 percent, and
the maximum growth rate was 10.1 percent. For
short-term programs, the minimum positive growth
rate was 1.3 percent, the median growth rate (using
years with positive growth) was 4.5 percent, and the
maximum growth rate was 13.0 percent. We use
these minimums, medians, and maximums for the
low-, medium-, and high-growth rates for our
analysis of exclusively online enrollment and
enrollment in short-term certificate programs.
19 We use these years because they were the most
recently available data at the time this analysis was
conducted. Pell Grant and Federal student loan
disbursement data are from IPEDS for our analysis
of exclusively online programs. Specifically, we
assume that students in exclusively online
programs receive a proportional share of title IV,
Federal student aid at an institution. For example,
if 50 percent of students at an institution were
enrolled in exclusively online programs, we assume

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68695

The estimated increase in potential
Title IV, HEA recipients and
disbursements are shown in Tables 3.6
and 3.7. Under a low-growth
assumption for the creation and
expansion of online programs, we
estimate there could be 26,400 new Pell
Grant recipients annually relative to the
baseline, resulting in a total increase in
annual disbursements of $136.4 million.
Under high-growth assumptions for
online programs, we estimate there
could be as many as 157,000 new Pell
Grant recipients annually relative to the
baseline, resulting in a net increase of
$810.5 million in Pell Grants. Turning
to short-term programs, using lowgrowth assumptions for the creation and
expansion of short-term certificate
programs, we estimate there could be
1,700 new Pell Grant recipients
annually, resulting in an increase of
$7.5 million in total annual
disbursements. Under high-growth
assumptions for short-term programs,
there could be 17,300 new Pell Grant
recipients annually, resulting in a total
increase in annual disbursements of $75
million.
The Department reiterates that these
projections are estimates based on
historical trends in enrollment increases
in exclusively online and short-term
programs. However, due to the
uncertainty in the type and format of
possible innovations, we acknowledge
that the amount of growth that may
come about due to the final rule could
differ in scale or magnitude from
historical levels.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

that half of the institution’s title IV aid (Pell Grants
and student loans, obtained through IPEDS) was
disbursed to students in exclusively online
programs. Pell Grant and loan disbursement data for
our analysis of short-term certificate programs are
from the Department’s administrative records. This
data may include a small amount of double
counting if the same students are enrolled at two
or more short-term certificate programs at the same
institution in the same award year.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C

The final rule also states that agencies
should apply their standards in ways
that seek to reduce unnecessary barriers
that restrict the ability of institutions or
programs from adopting instructional,
programmatic, or delivery practices that
improve or accelerate credential
completion. By reducing unnecessary
procedural requirements, encouraging
accrediting agencies to minimize
administrative burdens, recognizing

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

innovative educational delivery models,
and discouraging unnecessary barriers
to new instructional approaches, the
final rule is expected to facilitate
experimentation with new methods of
delivering high-quality postsecondary
education. Because many of these
innovations have not yet been
developed or implemented, the
Department cannot estimate their future
value, but expects that increased

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

flexibility may improve educational
quality, enrollment, and affordability
over time.
The provisions in the final rule
related to innovation and new
educational models are likely to provide
benefits to students by increasing the
range of available educational options
and by reducing prices for those
options. As noted in the Net Budget
Impact section of this RIA and in the

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.016</GPH>

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

ER30OC26.015</GPH>

68696

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
2019 Accreditation regulations, these
factors may have offsetting effects on
loan and grant volumes as credit
transfer or shorter programs could
reduce the amount needed to complete
a degree but others could encourage
increased enrollment. Accrediting
agencies will bear new costs in aligning
their policies and practices to
implement those new requirements.
Finally, the rule requires major new
changes that mandate separation
between trade associations or affiliated
organizations and accrediting agencies.
These relationships can result in
credential inflation if trade associations
seek to require additional credentials to
enter into a profession and then use
their affiliation with an accrediting
agency to make those requirements a
condition of accreditation for programs
at institutions. One report finds that
many Federally recognized
programmatic accrediting agencies
maintain deep structural ties with the
professional and trade associations with
which they are affiliated.20
Accrediting agencies and affiliated
organizations or associations will bear
new costs under these provisions as
they work to alter their legal,
operational, and physical structures.
Students may benefit from these
changes because the policies could
reduce excessive and unnecessary
degree and time requirements to enter
into certain professions.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Department Administrative Costs
The Department expects the final rule
to impose only modest incremental
administrative costs on the Federal
government. Most provisions modify the
criteria and procedures the Department
uses when recognizing accrediting
agencies rather than establishing new
Federal programs or recurring
operational responsibilities.
Implementation will primarily require
Department staff to review new, or
additional, accrediting agency
recognition applications and petitions
under the revised standards. These
reviews are already part of the
Department’s regular recognition
process, and the final rule generally
changes the substance of those reviews
rather than creating new review
processes. As a result, the Department
expects most implementation activities
to be absorbed within existing
recognition cycles and staffing levels.
Some additional staff time may be
required during the initial
20 Bryan Cutsinger and Siri Terjesen, Captured

gatekeepers: Structural conflicts of interest in U.S.
higher education accreditation, European Economic
Review, Vol. 190, 2026.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

implementation period to review
revised accrediting agency policies and
procedures addressing issues such as
conflicts of interest, independence from
affiliated organizations, antitrust
compliance, student outcomes,
academic freedom, intellectual
diversity, research integrity, and other
revised recognition criteria. The
Department also anticipates limited onetime costs associated with updating
guidance documents, internal training
materials, and information systems
necessary to administer the revised
regulations.
To the extent the final rule encourages
the recognition of additional accrediting
agencies or increases the number of
institutions seeking to change agencies,
the Department could experience a
modest increase in recognition-related
workload. However, these activities are
expected to occur gradually over
multiple recognition cycles and to
remain manageable within existing
administrative structures.
The Department also anticipates
offsetting administrative savings. Since
the Department announced its
accreditation reform efforts, three
accrediting agencies have voluntarily
withdrawn from Department
recognition.21 As additional agencies
determine that they no longer wish to
maintain Federal recognition under the
revised regulatory framework, the
Department expects the number of
Federally recognized accrediting
agencies requiring recognition reviews,
interim monitoring, compliance
reporting, and other oversight activities
to decline. A smaller number of
recognized agencies would reduce the
Department’s workload associated with
recognition petitions, staff reviews,
National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI) proceedings, monitoring, and
related administrative actions, thereby
partially offsetting the implementation
costs associated with the final rule.
The final rule may also generate
longer-term administrative efficiencies
by establishing clearer recognition
standards and focusing Department
oversight on areas presenting the
greatest risk to students and taxpayers.
To the extent these reforms improve the
efficiency of the recognition process,
they could reduce both Federal
administrative costs and private-sector
compliance burdens over time.
Accordingly, the Department does not
anticipate that implementation of the
21 3 Programmatic Accreditors Withdraw From
Federal Recognition—https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/
accreditation/2026/07/24/3-programmaticaccreditors-withdraw-federal-recognition.

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68697

final rule will require significant
additional Federal resources. Over time,
the Department expects that the
offsetting of administrative savings and
efficiencies described above may reduce
the overall Federal administrative
burden associated with oversight of
Federally recognized accrediting
agencies.
4. Additional Benefits
The Department expects the final rule
to produce several important benefits
that cannot be reliably quantified but
that are nevertheless relevant in
evaluating the overall effects of the rule.
First, the final rule is expected to
increase competition among recognized
accrediting agencies. The Department
anticipates that reducing unnecessary
barriers to the recognition of new
accrediting agencies, simplifying the
process by which institutions may
change accrediting agencies, and
eliminating unnecessary geographic
distinctions will increase institutional
choice and create stronger incentives for
accrediting agencies to innovate,
improve responsiveness to institutions,
and reduce unnecessary costs. While the
Department cannot reliably estimate the
magnitude of these effects, economic
theory and experience in other qualityassurance markets suggest that
increased competition is likely to
improve quality and efficiency over
time.
Second, the final rule is expected to
improve transparency and
accountability. The new requirements
regarding transfer-of credit policies,
public disclosure of accrediting actions,
institutional representations, and
research integrity will provide students,
taxpayers, employers, and policymakers
with more complete and reliable
information regarding institutional
quality and performance. Greater
transparency improves decision making
by prospective students and encourages
institutions to maintain high standards.
Although these benefits cannot readily
be expressed in monetary terms, the
Department expects them to improve
the functioning of the higher education
marketplace.
Third, the final rule is expected to
strengthen academic freedom,
intellectual inquiry, and the free
exchange of ideas. The Department
believes that institutions providing an
environment in which lawful
viewpoints may be expressed and
examined, faculty are evaluated without
regard to viewpoint or ideology, and
students are exposed to a range of
scholarly perspectives are better
positioned to fulfill the educational
purposes recognized by the Higher

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68698

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Education Act. While these educational
benefits cannot be quantified, the
Department considers them an
important component of institutional
quality and student learning.
Fourth, the final rule is expected to
reduce regulatory uncertainty by more
clearly distinguishing the Department’s
recognition criteria from accrediting
agencies’ own substantive accreditation
standards. The Department expects that
clearer recognition standards,
streamlined procedures, and more
transparent expectations will reduce
unnecessary disputes, improve the
efficiency of the recognition process,
and allow both accrediting agencies and
institutions to devote greater resources
to educational quality rather than
regulatory compliance. Although these
benefits cannot be quantified, they are
expected to improve the administration
of the Federal recognition process over
time.
Finally, the final rule will likely
strengthen public confidence in the
accreditation system. By emphasizing
educational quality, lawful
administration of accreditation
standards, research integrity, objective
measures of student outcomes,
transparency, and institutional
accountability, the Department expects
the final rule to reinforce public
confidence that accreditation serves
students and taxpayers while respecting
institutional diversity, including
intellectual diversity, and mission.
Although these effects are inherently
difficult to quantify, they are central
objectives of the proposed rule.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

5. Net Budget Impact
The Department continues to estimate
that the changes to accreditation
implemented by the final rule will not
have a significant net Federal budget
impact. However, we present the effects
of the middle scenarios in Tables 3.3,
3.6, and 3.7 here for illustrative
purposes. The transfer scenario from
Table 3.3 is a reduction in volume that
offsets the increases from innovation,
which would result in a net budget
impact of ¥$131 million in loans and
¥$4.2 billion in Pell Grants. Consistent
with the requirements of the Credit
Reform Act of 1990, budget cost
estimates for the student loan programs

22 84 FR 23768.
23 91 FR 40136.
24 84 FR 58834.
25 91 FR 160 p. 53940 available at https://
www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/20/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

reflect the estimated net present value of
all future non-administrative Federal
costs associated with a cohort of loans.
A cohort reflects all loans originated in
a given fiscal year. The baseline for
estimating the cost of these regulations
is the President’s Budget FY2027
baseline that includes effects of the
Working Families Tax Cuts Act and
final regulations related to loan limits,
repayment plans, and other areas
published May 1, 2026 22 and related to
earnings accountability published July
1, 2026.23
Rules governing accreditation and the
roles of actors in the Federal-Stateaccrediting agency triad have been the
subject of several recent rules, including
a rule published November 1, 2019 24
that shared the goals of reducing
barriers that limit competition,
innovations, and new educational
models. Adjustments from the earlier
regulations are in the current budget
baseline.
The final rule will build on and
further those initial efforts to foster
innovation and remove regulatory
barriers in the accreditation process.
This could have offsetting effects on
Federal student loan and Pell Grant
volumes. If some schools are able to
begin or extend their participation in
the title IV, HEA programs by finding
accrediting agencies that support their
innovative approaches or missions, that
could increase volumes compared to the
baseline. On the other hand, accrediting
agencies requiring more acceptability of
transfer credits or approving
experiential credits may allow some
students to complete programs faster
and reduce loan and grant volumes. The
proposed mandate that accrediting
agencies require institutions to use data
on student-level outcomes to improve
performance mitigates concerns that
making accreditation changes less
burdensome would result in greater
defaults or other negative outcomes.
As noted in the NPRM published
August 20, 2026,25 the Department does
not anticipate a significant budget
impact of the final rule. Several
commenters responded to the estimate
of no budget impact in the NPRM
published August 20, 2026 suggesting
additional analysis and that the rule
should have a significant net budget

2026-17001/accreditation-innovation-andmodernization-the-secretarys-recognition-ofaccrediting-agencies.
26 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for
H.R. 4054, Accreditation Choice and Innovation

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

impact. Some compared this estimate
with analysis for the 2019 rule regarding
accreditation as support for the current
rule having a significant impact.
Commenters pointed out that the
Congressional Budget Office estimated
increases of $225 million in loans, $212
million in mandatory Pell, and $1.13
billion in discretionary Pell Grant
volume over 2026–2035 from proposed
legislation with similar provisions.26
Many comments referenced the removal
of accreditation constraints leading to
volume, including new volume, flowing
to institutions that may have had
difficulty maintaining accreditation
under existing rules. Other commenters
noted the potential decrease in volume
associated with transfer students from
the provisions regarding acceptance of
credits that is discussed around Table
3.3 of this RIA. While the Department
still believes that the effects of these
provisions will not lead to an
appreciable net budget impact on title
IV, HEA programs, we have included
estimates of alternative scenarios to
illustrate potential effects.
Alternate Scenarios
As described in the Costs, Benefits,
and Transfers section of this RIA, there
are possibilities that the changes in the
final rule related to acceptance of
transfer credits, encouraging innovation,
and other aspects could result in
volume increases or reductions.
Therefore, we have considered two
alternative scenarios based on the
medium scenarios for transfers and
innovation presented in Tables 3.3 and
3.6–3.7. To estimate the budget impact
on student loans, we took the estimated
reduction in Table 3.3 and distributed to
budget risk groups (2-yr proprietary, 2year non-profit and public, 4-yr fr/so, 4yr junior/senior, graduate) and loan
types using 2024–25 Q4 year-to-date
school level loan disbursements from
the FSA data center 27 with 4-year
reductions split in half between risk
groups. As the transfer scenarios in the
Costs, Benefits, and Transfers section of
this RIA analyzed undergraduate
enrollment, we focused the sensitivities
on exclusively undergraduate risk
groups and distributed the reduction as
shown in Table 5.1.

Act, June 25, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/61826.
27 2024–2025 Award Year Direct Loan Volume by
School, Federal Student Aid Data Center, available
at https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/titleiv.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

5.1B provides the distribution of the
reduction for Pell Grants.

We ramped the estimated effects up
over time as seen in Table 5.2 because
the final rule involves accreditation

changes that institutions will gradually
respond to over time.

ER30OC26.018</GPH> ER30OC26.019</GPH>

Pell Grants are estimated by type and
control, not loan risk groups and Table

68699

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.017</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

68700

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
with transfer students in AY 2024–25.
The loan reduction results in
approximately ¥$162 million in net
budget impact in the Direct Loan
program. As seen in Table 5.3B, the

reduction in transfers is estimated to
reduce Pell Grant costs by
approximately $5.7 billion over the
budget window from 2027–2036 with
effects starting in FY 2029.

The innovation scenario assumes an
increase in loan and Pell grant volume
as seen in Tables 3.6 and 3.7.
Combining the medium scenarios in
those tables, the increases associated
with these examples of educational

innovations were approximately $488
million in Direct loan volume and $443
million in Pell grants. The estimated
volume increase from innovation results
in approximately $31 million in outlays
in the Direct Loan program over 10

years. As seen in 5.4B, the increased
volume associated with innovation is
estimated to increase Pell Grant costs by
approximately $1.5 billion over the
budget window from 2027–2036 with
effects starting in FY 2030.

ER30OC26.021</GPH> ER30OC26.022</GPH>

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.020</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

ER30OC26.023</GPH>

The estimated volume reduction from
transfers of $2.85 billion annually in
Table 3.3 was distributed as $1.53
billion in loans and $1.32 billion in Pell
Grants based on volumes associated

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
d. Accounting Statement

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

As required by OMB Circular A–4, we
have prepared an accounting statement

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

showing the classification of the
benefits, costs, and transfers associated
with the provisions of these regulations.
Table 5.4 provides our best estimate of

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68701

the changes in annual monetized
benefits, costs, and transfers as a result
of the final rule.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.024</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68702

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
e. Alternatives Considered
As a part of the development of these
regulations, the Department engaged in
a negotiated rulemaking process in
which we received comments and
proposals from non-Federal negotiators
representing numerous impacted
constituencies on a variety of issues.
The proposals were submitted from the
constituencies listed under the
‘‘Negotiated Rulemaking’’ heading of the
NPRM. Information about these
proposals is available on our rulemaking
website at https://www.ed.gov/lawsand-policy/higher-education-laws-andpolicy/higher-education-policy/
negotiated-rulemaking-highereducation-2026. Furthermore, the
Department received 7,051 total
comments during the public comment
period. We considered them all as
possible alternatives.
This section summarizes two
alternatives that were considered but
ultimately declined by the Department.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Application of Standards in Reaching
Accreditation Decisions (§ 602.17(a)(1)
and (2))
During negotiated rulemaking and the
public comment period the Department
received extensive feedback on the
application of accreditation and
preaccreditation standards related to
student achievement and faculty. While
the rulemaking committee came to
consensus on the entire proposal, the
Department received varied
commentary during the public comment
period. Some commenters supported the
provisions stating that the provisions
focus on student outcomes and
prioritize intellectual diversity amongst
faculty. Alternatively, some commenters
also opposed the provisions stating that
the Department exceeded its statutory
authority and that it will use the
regulations as a mechanism to
punitively target agencies and
institutions that do not align with the
Administration’s own political agenda.
The Department considered
amendments to provisions under
§ 602.17, however, we believe the
application of standards are important
considerations in evaluating the quality
of higher education. The new
regulations require accrediting agencies,
when applying their standards, to
consider institutional policies and
practices relating to student
achievement and faculty. They do not
prescribe the content of such policies,
require institutions to adopt particular
policies, or require accrediting agencies
to establish separate substantive
standards in these areas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

An accrediting agency must consider
relevant institutional policies and
practices in the context of its existing
standards and the institution’s mission.
Where an agency has adopted standards
addressing these matters, it must apply
and enforce those standards
consistently.
These provisions govern the process
by which accrediting agencies evaluate
institutions, rather than prescribing
particular accreditation standards.
Arbitration (§ 602.20(e))
During the public comment period the
Department received a few substantive
comments arguing that arguing that
prohibiting binding arbitration
agreements between would undermine
efforts to resolve disputes between
institutions and accrediting agencies
through negotiation and result in an
increase in costly, protracted litigation.
Commenters argued that binding
arbitration agreements can provide
institutions and agencies with a more
efficient and less costly way.
The Department considered changes
to the provision, however, we have
consistently concluded that under
Section 496(e) of the HEA arbitration
cannot be binding, because the statute
only refers to ‘‘initial’’ arbitration and
provides that the institution may still
instigate ‘‘any other legal action’’ after
arbitration.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section considers the effects that
the final rule may have on small entities
in the Educational Sector as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5
U.S.C. et seq., Pub. L. 96–354) as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA). The purpose of the RFA
is to establish as a principle of
regulation that agencies should tailor
regulatory and informational
requirements to the size of entities,
consistent with the objectives of a
particular regulation and applicable
statutes.
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) or any other statute unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a ‘‘significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
This final rule implements regulatory
changes to realign the Secretary’s
criteria for recognition of accrediting
agencies.
Congress has prohibited the
Department from intervening in the
curricular decisions of an institution or

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68703

attempting to exert control over its
faculty, administration, or academic
programs. Instead, under the HEA,
accrediting agencies oversee the quality
and academic sufficiency of
instructional programs at institutions
participating in the title IV, HEA
programs. Accrediting agencies are
independent, membership-based
organizations that review member
institutions or programs to ensure they
meet certain standards for academic
quality and rigor.
The HEA requires the Secretary to
establish criteria for determining
whether an accrediting agency is a
reliable authority, for purposes of the
HEA and for other Federal purposes, on
the quality of education or training
offered by the institutions or programs
that they accredit. Such criteria are
required to include appropriate
measures of student achievement.
Consistent with statute, the Secretary
has established regulations for
recognition of accrediting agencies at 34
CFR part 602 and has revised these
regulations periodically.
E.O. 14279 directed the Secretary to
take several actions related to the
recognition of accrediting agencies or
associations by the Department. Some of
these actions require changes to existing
regulations. The goal of these regulatory
changes is to realign the Secretary’s
criteria for recognition of accrediting
agencies to promote high-quality, high
value, and affordable education for
students.
The Department estimates that the
final rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of institutional accrediting
agencies that meet the definition of
small entities. However, the Department
believes that the final rule will only
indirectly impact institutions of higher
education.
Description of, and, Where Feasible, an
Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Regulations Will
Apply
The Department believes that
institutions of higher education are not
directly regulated by the final rule and
could only be indirectly impacted by
actions accrediting agencies take in
response to the final rule. For this
reason, the Department does not
examine the possible impact of the final
rule on small entities that are
institutions of higher education. The
Department also notes that it is difficult
to estimate the impact of the final rule
on institutions of higher education that
are small entities because accrediting
agencies have wide discretion in how
they implement the final changes, and

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

data on the impact of accreditation
regulations on institutions are not
available. Moreover, as explained in
Section 5 of this RIA (‘‘Net Budget
Impact’’), several of the final regulatory
changes are likely to have offsetting
revenue effects for institutions,
including on institutions of higher
education that are small entities. For
example, institutions will be subject to
new student outcome standards for
recognition purposes, which could force
some institutions to reform or close
programs, negatively affecting their
revenues. Policies aimed at increasing
credit transfers for students could have
similar negative revenue effects on
small entities. On the other hand, the
final rule includes several provisions
meant to prevent accrediting agencies
from unnecessarily restricting
innovation in educational models,
which should allow institutions—
including small entities—greater
operational flexibility, which could
increase their revenue. The final reforms

to increase new entrants and agency
switching should also promote greater
operational flexibility by creating a
more favorable environment for
institutions looking to innovate.
The group directly affected by the
final rule is accrediting agencies. Most
accrediting agencies are organized as
nonprofit entities that are defined as
‘‘small entities’’ if they are
independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field of operation.
While dominance in accreditation is
hard to determine for institutional
accrediting agencies, as it currently
stands, the Department believes
programmatic accrediting agencies—
that is, recognized agencies that accredit
specific programs within an
institution—very often have dominance
in their field. This is because there are
usually, at most only one or two, and in
rare cases multiple, programmatic
agencies that provide recognition for a
given field or occupation, that is used
not only for Federal programs, but also

as for educational requirements related
to professional licensure.[20] Therefore,
we do not consider programmatic
accrediting agencies to be small entities
for the purposes of this analysis. This
determination is consistent with the
Department’s past position on
accrediting agency size standards.
The Department believes that
institutional accrediting agencies, which
function as gatekeepers to title IV, HEA
program funds and are subject to many
of the policy changes in the final rule,
meet the standard for small entities. The
Department considers these agencies to
be ‘‘professional organizations’’ as
classified under the North America
Industry Classification System (813920).
The SBA defines small professional
organizations as businesses having less
than $24 million in total annual
revenue. Each accrediting agency
recognized by the Department as
institutional accrediting agencies report
annual revenue below this threshold
(Table 6.1).

To determine whether the final rule
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of
institutional accrediting agencies, the
Department uses information on the
burden the final rule would impose on
institutional accrediting agencies
included in the Paperwork Reduction
Act section of this final rule. The final
rule is estimated to require 352 hours of
labor per institutional accrediting
agency to comply with the final

regulations because institutional
accrediting agencies will need to update
their processes, data collection efforts,
and reporting activities.
Using the median hourly wage for
Education Administrators,
Postsecondary (11–9033) from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics ($50.29 in
2025) and then doubling that figure to
account for overhead costs and
employee benefits, results in an average
annual burden imposed on an

institutional accrediting agency of
$35,404.21
These new costs will create a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of institutional
accrediting agencies. For the purposes
of this analysis the Department has
defined ‘‘significant economic impact’’
as increasing or reducing a small
entity’s revenues by more than 3
percent, and a ‘‘substantial number of
small entities’’ as more the 5 percent of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.025</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68704

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

entities that meet the Department’s
definition of a small entity. The $35,404
estimated burden for institutional
accrediting agencies that result from the
rule is about 6 percent of the
Association of the Institutions of Jewish
Studies’ reported annual revenue of
approximately $600,000, exceeding the
Department’s threshold of 3 percent. All
other agencies would experience less
than a 3 percent effect on their
revenues. Because there are fewer than
20 institutional accrediting agencies, a
single accrediting agency represents
over 5 percent of the accrediting
agencies and the final rule exceeds the
Department’s threshold for a substantial
number.
Alternatives Considered (Small Entities)
It is the Department’s general policy
to minimize compliance costs and
regulatory burden for all regulated
entities, especially small entities, and to
develop regulations that are consistent
with statutory requirements. The
Department considered other options
and changes to the proposed rule
intended to reduce compliance costs
and administrative burden for small
entities such as whether institutional
accrediting agencies who meet the
definition of small entities could have
fewer reporting requirements, or
exemptions from certain aspects of the
regulation. As explained above, each
currently-recognized institutional
accrediting agency is a relatively small
non-profit voluntary membership
organization and meets the definition of
a small entity based on annual revenue
volume (see Table 6.1). The Department
determined that alternatives policies for
small entities would diminish the
effectiveness of the final rule for
institutional accrediting agencies, which
serve as quality gatekeepers for
institutions participating in the Federal
student assistance programs, under
which approximately 13 million
students will receive more than $120
billion in the current year. Furthermore,
the Department believes that such
alternatives are inconsistent with the
Higher Education Act, which establishes
specific requirements for recognition of
accrediting agencies that the existing
regulations implement and which are
further enhanced by the final rule, and
E.O. 14279, which directed the
Secretary to take specific actions.
Comments From the NPRM
Comments: Several commenters urged
the Department to provide an estimate
of the impact on institutions of higher
education that meet its small entities
definition in its Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for the proposed rule. One

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

commenter also argued that the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis should
estimate the impact on programmatic
accrediting agencies because they are
consequential in affecting higher
education policy.
Discussion: The Department did not
provide a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for institutions of higher
education because it believes
institutions are only indirectly affected
by the rule; the rule applies to
accrediting agencies and not institutions
of higher education. Courts have held
that the Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires an agency to perform a
regulatory flexibility analysis of small
entity impacts only when a rule directly
regulates small entities. On the issue of
programmatic accrediting agencies, the
Department maintains that these entities
are dominant in their fields because
there are usually, at most only one or
two, and in rare cases multiple,
programmatic agencies that provide
recognition for a given field or
occupation. They therefore do not meet
the definition of a small entity. The
Department has, however, provided an
impact analysis for institutional
accrediting agencies.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asked
the Department to revisit its Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis, noting that the
Department’s paperwork and
compliance burden was inaccurate and
understated the burden imposed on
institutional accrediting agencies.
Discussion: The Department used
paperwork and compliance burden
estimates to determine that the
proposed rule would impose a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of institutional
accrediting agencies, which fit the
Department’s definition of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Department estimated in the
proposed rule that only one institutional
accrediting agency would experience a
compliance burden that would exceed
three percent of its annual revenue. The
Department has reviewed and revised
the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis
and burden that will be imposed on
institutional accrediting agencies in the
final rule. Those changes (a slight
reduction in the paperwork and
compliance burden estimates for
institutional accrediting agencies from
those published in the proposed rule)
are reflected in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis but they do not
change the Department’s estimates of
the overall impact on small entities.

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68705

Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
Department consider the impact of
paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the
public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)),
an agency may not conduct or sponsor
the collection of information, nor may it
impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number.
As part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps
make certain that the public
understands the Department’s collection
instructions, respondents can provide
the requested data in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the Department can properly assess the
impact of collection requirements on
respondents.
Discussion
The purpose of the regulations at 34
CFR part 602 is to ensure that
accrediting agencies are, for purposes of
the HEA and other Federal purposes,
reliable authorities regarding the quality
of education or training offered by the
institutions or programs that they
accredit. Accreditation in the United
States has generally involved nongovernmental entities that develop
quality criteria and conduct evaluations,
primarily through peer review, to
determine whether or not those criteria
are met. Reliance on the recognized
accrediting agencies’ quality assurance
function is one of the three main
elements of oversight for the HEA’s
Federal student aid programs. In order
for students to receive Federal student
aid from the Department for
postsecondary study, the institution
must be accredited by an accrediting
agency (or, for certain vocational
institutions, approved by a State
approval agency) recognized under
these regulations, be authorized by the
State in which the institution is located,
and receive approval from the
Department through a program
participation agreement.
As of October 1, 2026, the Secretary
recognized 50 accrediting agencies that

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68706

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

are independent, membership-based
organizations designed to ensure
students have access to qualified
faculty, appropriate curriculum, and
other support services. Of these 50
accrediting agencies recognized by the
Secretary, 34 are institutional for title IV
HEA purposes and 16 are solely
programmatic. Institutional accrediting
agencies accredit entire institutions of
higher education, while programmatic
accrediting agencies accredit specific
educational programs within
institutions that prepare students for
entry into a profession, occupation, or
vocation. The Paperwork Reduction Act
section will use these figures in
assessing burden. Additionally, we use
the number of title IV eligible
institutions noted in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis as the basis for
assessing institutional burden in the
Paperwork Reduction Act section.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

General Comments
Some commenters believed that the
burden estimates provided in the NPRM
did not properly account for one-time
and recurring costs for institutions and
accrediting agencies. Some examples
cited were: revising standards,
developing processes, collecting and
analyzing information, training
personnel and reviewers, conducting
additional reviews, reporting, and
maintaining new requirements. Some
commenters made suggestions that the
Department assess the full institutional
cost of the proposed regulation.
Discussion: The Department
disagrees. The President’s Executive
Order specifically directed the Secretary
of Education to take appropriate steps to
reduce barriers that limit institutions in
adopting practices that advance degree
completion and new education models,
as well as increasing the consistency,
efficiency, and effectiveness of the
accrediting agency recognition process,
and streamlining the process for
institutions to change accrediting
agencies. Moreover, in doing this review
directed by the Executive Order, the
Department considered and reviewed
the existing burden on accrediting
agencies and institutions in the current
regulations before considering
additional changes to the existing
requirements.
The final rule achieves the goals set
forth in the Executive Order and further
eliminates requirements that the
Department identified as unnecessarily
burdensome. These changes were
proposed in negotiated rulemaking and
included in the draft regulations that the
negotiated rulemaking committee
achieved consensus on.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

This Paperwork Reduction Act
analysis estimates the burden of both
one-time implementation actions and
any recurring requirements from new
regulatory changes in the final rule.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that the burden estimates in
the NPRM rested on unstated
assumptions about future institutional
academic records and to what extent
such records are provided as structured
documents. (In considering this
comment, the Department assumed that
in referring to ‘‘structured documents,’’
the commenters were referring to
electronic or physical documents that
organize information using a predefined
template, strict hierarchy, or markup or
data schemas so that every piece of
content appears in a predictable
location and form.)
Discussion: The burden hour
estimates for this final rule are based on
a review of past estimates for
requirements in each section, currently
approved information collections, and
the degree to which the final rule adds
to or changes existing requirements.
Additionally, while the Department did
consider that certain records, such as
institutional records, would generally be
in electronic form, it did not assume
that all documents, such as academic
transcripts, were structured documents
in uniform formats across varying
institutions. The discussion in this
section and in the description of the
changes in the preamble clearly identify
the basis for the Department’s estimates,
and no assumptions have been left
unstated.
Comments: Several commenters noted
that institutions are likely to already
demonstrate compliance with some of
the proposed regulations. They
supported the new requirements in the
recognition regulations and believed
them to be best practices currently
demonstrated by agencies or
institutions. Other commenters
suggested that the Department rely on
institutions using their current practices
rather than changing regulatory
requirements for all.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates these comments and the
support for the regulations. However,
the Department declines to rely solely
on an institution’s current practices and
has included in the recognition criteria
in the final rule accrediting agency best
practices that promote transparency and
consistency across recognized
accrediting agencies and the institutions
and programs that they accredit.
Comments: Several large institutions
submitted comments stating their belief
that the Department underestimated the
burden on institutions of the new

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regulations on credit transfers and the
costs of implementing the regulations,
such as the cost of changes to
institutional policies and student
information systems that will be
needed. One commenter stated that
applying the same 300-hour estimate to
institutions regardless of the scale and
complexity of their transfer operations
significantly understated the burden on
many institutions and does not
adequately reflect the resources
necessary for implementation.
Commenters asked the Department to
re-assess burden estimates to include all
aspects of implementation and consider
the complexity of the size and
operations of the school.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with the commenters’ statements that
burden estimates did not consider
changes to institutional policies and
student information. As part of the
NPRM, the Department published
supplemental information documenting
the burden analysis for transfer credits
described in the Paperwork Reduction
Act section.
The Department also declines to
adjust the 300-hour burden estimate. We
also note that 300 hours is an estimate,
and we expect some institutions will
incur more or less burden. The estimate
is consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, which requires an
estimate of burden based on the
estimated number of responses
multiplied by the estimated average
hourly burden per respondent.
This action contains the following
new information collection
requirements and amendments to
existing collections:
§ 600.11 Special Rules Regarding
Institutional Accreditation or
Preaccreditation.
Requirements
The final rule in § 600.11 will reduce
burdensome requirements on
institutions seeking to add or change
recognized accrediting agencies.
Currently, institutions are required to
submit materials to the Department
demonstrating a reasonable cause for
changing accrediting agencies, and then
wait for the Department’s approval of
the change in accrediting agency. The
current regulations include several
criteria for which the Secretary will not
determine such change to be reasonable
cause. Section 600.11 removes the
approval step and the latter criteria
unless the Secretary determines that the
change is being sought to evade or
circumvent a requirement of Federal
law or regulation; avoid or delay
enforcement or oversight by the

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Department or an accrediting agency;
obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA
programs through misrepresentation or
other unlawful means; or otherwise
undermine the integrity of the title IV,
HEA programs.
Institutions seeking accreditation
from multiple recognized accrediting
agencies will only be required to submit
a brief, reasonable explanation to the
Department for this request.
Additionally, the institution will be
required to use all reasonable efforts to
notify current students and recent
graduates of any change of accrediting
agency within 10 days.
Comments: We received two
comments disagreeing with the
proposed changes to § 600.11 citing
increased burden and documentation on
institutions when seeking to change
accrediting agencies.
Discussion: The changes to § 600.11 in
the final rule will not introduce new
burden on institutions. Prior to the final
rule the regulations in this section
already required institutions to provide

documentation to the Department when
seeking to change accrediting agencies.
The changes in the final rule will
decrease the amount of documentation
and justification that institutions will be
required to submit to the Department
and will eliminate the requirement to
wait for the Department’s approval
before seeking to change recognized
accrediting agencies.

§ 602.12

§ 602.14

Accrediting Experience

Burden Calculation
In the Paperwork Reduction Act
section of the NPRM, the Department
noted that institutions will be required
to submit a form with required
information on switching accrediting
agencies and that burden for this
requirement will be assessed under a
new OMB control number and will be
made available for public comment
prior to the rule becoming effective.
However, the Department has reevaluated this position in the final rule
and will not be requiring a new form for
institutions changing accrediting
agencies. Since this notification is

Purpose and Organization

Requirements

Requirements

The final rule in § 602.12(a) requires
that an agency seeking initial
recognition demonstrate that it has
sufficient accreditation experience prior
to submitting an application for
recognition.

The final rule in § 602.14 strengthens
the fiscal and administrative
requirements that a recognized agency
must meet in order for an agency to
demonstrate that it is ‘‘separate and
independent’’ from any related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or membership organization. Section
496(a)(3) of the HEA requires an
accrediting agency to operate ‘‘separate
and independent’’ of any related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or membership organization unless that
agency is categorized as having a
voluntary membership of institutions or

Burden Calculation
Burden for the regulation is assessed
elsewhere throughout the changes and
in the burden estimates for requirements
for recognition.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68707

currently required under prior
regulations no burden calculation has
been made for this change.
§ 602.3
part?

What definitions apply to this

Requirements
The final rule in § 602.3 revises some
key definitions and adds new
definitions used in these regulations.
Burden Calculation
Accrediting agencies and institutions
will be required to review the new
definitions and update internal policies
and procedures to ensure they are
compliant with the new regulations.
The Department estimates that it will
take recognized accrediting agencies 20
hours and institutions 5 hours to
review, update, and make any relevant
changes not otherwise referenced in this
section to be required to be in
compliance with the regulations. The
Department anticipates this will be a
one-time burden.

programs that utilize the agency’s
accreditation to access other Department
or Federal programs. Section 496(b) of
the HEA defines the term ‘‘separate and
independent’’.
Under the final rule, agencies subject
to the ‘‘separate and independent’’
requirements are prohibited from any
joint use of personnel, services,
equipment, or facilities with a related,
associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization. In
addition, such recognized agencies must
establish and implement conflict of
interest controls for each member of
their decision-making body.
The final rule in § 602.14 will also
require as part of the initial and renewal

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.026</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

68708

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

of agency recognition process, an
authorized representative of the agency
to submit a signed statement certifying
that it has met the requirements for
being separate and independent. This
certification must also include
information regarding any complaints
received during the current recognition
period.
Burden Calculation
The change under § 602.14(b)(6) will
require an authorized representative of
the agency to submit a signed statement
certifying that it has met the
requirements to be ‘‘separate and
independent.’’ The Department
estimates that this change will take an
agency five hours to complete the
statement and obtain the necessary
signature annually.
34 Institutional Accrediting Agencies ×
5 Hours = 170 Burden Hours
§ 602.15 Administrative and Fiscal
Responsibilities
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.15 will clarify
that conflict of interest controls are an
integral part of the administrative and
fiscal capability criteria the Department
uses for determining recognized
accrediting agencies. Prior to this final
rule, conflict of interest controls were
not included in the administrative and
fiscal responsibilities regulations. With
this final rule, agencies will now be
required to have conflict of interest
controls.
Additionally, the final rule in § 602.15
will require training to be provided to
agency representatives and staff,
focusing on best practices and avoiding
unnecessary costs. The final rule will
also require an agency to cooperate with
other agencies and the Department to
develop common accreditation
templates.
Burden Calculation
The Department estimates that it will
take each accrediting agency 30 hours to
create, review and update conflict of
interest controls.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

50 Accrediting Agencies × 30 Hours =
1,500 Burden Hours
Developing and conducting training
for representatives and staff would
create burden on accrediting agencies.
We estimate it would take 18 hours for
an agency to create or research
appropriate training for their staff. The
Department anticipates this will be an
ongoing burden.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 18 Hours =
900 Burden Hours

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

§ 602.17 Application of Standards in
Reaching Accreditation Decisions
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.17 will clarify
expectations for agency review of
student achievement and faculty-related
standards and policies, including those
addressing academic freedom and
intellectual diversity. They will also
encompass agency review of
institutional cost/benefit analyses,
educational objectives, student success,
faculty performance and evaluation,
facilities, academic freedom, and
intellectual diversity.
The final rule is consistent with
Section 496(a)(6)(A) of the HEA which
states that no accrediting agency may be
determined by the Secretary to be a
reliable authority as to the quality of
education or training offered or for other
Federal purposes, unless the agency
meets criteria established by the
Secretary. The statute states that such
criteria shall include appropriate
measures of student achievement and
require that an agency establish and
apply review procedures throughout the
accrediting process, including
evaluation and withdrawal proceedings,
which comply with due process
procedures.
Comments
Some comments submitted by
institutions mentioned the burden
estimate for the cost/benefit analysis in
§ 602.17, which the Department
estimated in the NPRM to be 750,150
burden hours across Title IVparticipating institutions. Some
commenters disagreed with the
estimate, asserting it was severely
underestimated while others expressed
concern it was too high. Other
comments stated the burden of the cost/
benefit analysis could not be estimated
due to lack of instruction on specific
requirements of such analysis. One
comment stated the Department omitted
burden on institutions for § 602.17
entirely and only considered it for
accrediting agencies.
Discussion
None of the comments received from
institutions included suggestions to
improve the accuracy of the estimates of
the administrative burden that were
proposed to this section. However, the
Department re-evaluated the burden
estimate for institutions under this
section in response to the comments.
The Department has revised its analysis
of reporting burden for the changes in
Section 602.17 of the final rule. The
changes in this section address how
accrediting agencies seeking recognition

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

by the Department apply their standards
and do not impose new requirements on
institutions or programs, and the
Department has removed calculation of
institutional burden from the burden
calculation below.
Burden Calculation
The regulations in § 602.17 that have
already been in effect prior to the final
rule require a recognized agency to have
effective mechanisms for evaluating an
institution’s or a program’s compliance
with the agency’s standards before
reaching a decision to accredit or
preaccredit the institution or program.
Additionally, many agencies already
have policies and procedures in place
that are consistent with many of the
requirements in this section of the final
rule.
To comply with § 602.17, the
Department estimates that all agencies
will be required to review the final rule
and assess whether or not their
application of its current policies and
procedures comply with the new
requirements. As a result of this review,
some agencies are likely to be required
to make some changes to their policies
and procedures, which will vary agency
by agency. Based on the comments, we
assume that most agencies currently do
not review institutional cost/benefit
analyses in the areas identified by the
regulations. Thus, the estimate is an
average amount of time across all
agencies, with some agencies incurring
more burden and some incurring less.
We estimate this would take an
agency approximately 20 hours to
review initial compliance with § 602.17.
50 Recognized agencies × 20 Hours =
1,000 Burden Hours
We estimate the change to existing
policies and procedures would take an
average of 40 hours; however, we do not
estimate that the changes in this section
would increase the overall time for an
agency to review an institution or
program. Thus, the estimate is an
average amount of time to take steps to
change policies across all agencies, with
some agencies incurring more burden
and some incurring less.
50 Accrediting agencies × 40 Hours =
2,000 Burden Hours
§ 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in
Decision-Making
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.18(b)(4) will
clarify that a recognized agency only
meets the requirement in paragraph (a)
of this section if the agency ‘‘has
adopted and followed procedures to
ensure that agency decisions are neutral
with respect to viewpoint and ideology

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
that are unrelated to its accrediting
policies or standards.’’
Burden Calculation
Burden for this proposed regulation
has already been accounted for
elsewhere in this section.
§ 602.20

Enforcement of Standards

Requirements
The final rule in § 602.20(e) will
require an agency’s arbitration standards
or policies to be nonbinding, except that
both parties may agree to binding
arbitration after a dispute arises on a
case-by-case basis. Section 602.20(h)
will require an agency to have a policy
for restoring accreditation, including
retroactive restoration, to an institution.
Burden Calculation
The Department estimates that there
will be a one-time burden on accrediting
agencies that do not currently have
retroactive accreditation policies. We
estimate it would take an accrediting
agency 30 hours to create such a policy.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 30 Hours =
1,500 Burden Hours
The accreditation guidance 28 on nonbinding arbitration language has been in
effect since December 5, 2023; therefore,
we do not estimate this change to create
additional burden.
§ 602.21

Review of Standards

Requirements
The final rule in § 602.21 will
streamline the prescriptive requirements
in the prior regulations for an
accrediting agency to maintain a
comprehensive systematic program of
review. Specifically, the final rule
removes the requirements in paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of § 602.21 that are not
based on statute. Removing these
paragraphs eliminates burdensome and
complex regulations that are difficult for
accrediting agencies to implement and
difficult to enforce effectively and
consistently. The final rule continues to
retain the statutory requirement for
accrediting agencies to regularly review
their standards which, in totality,
affords them the flexibility to innovate
but also maintain essential requirements
for a regular review process.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Burden Calculation
The Department estimates the changes
to § 602.21 in the final rule will reduce
28 DCL GEN–23–14—Regulations Governing the
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, Institutional
Eligibility, and Arbitration—https://
fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dearcolleague-letters/2023-11-03/regulations-governingrecognition-accrediting-agencies-institutionaleligibility-and-arbitration-updated-dec-5-2023

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

annual burden on recognized
accrediting agencies. The last time
burden was assessed for this regulation
under OMB Control Number 1840–0788
the Department estimated that
reviewing standards would take
approximately 12 hours to complete
each year. In the NPRM, we estimated
a reduction of 4 hours per agency.
However, after reviewing the
requirements in response to comments,
we now estimate that the requirement
will take 6 hours per agency to
complete, a 50 percent reduction in
annual burden compared to the prior
requirements. The Department is
adjusting the annual burden hours
under OMB Control Number 1840–0788
accordingly.
§ 602.22 Substantive Changes and
Other Reporting Requirements
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.22 will clarify,
streamline, and reduce the types of
situations that are defined in the
agency’s definition of substantive
change.
Burden Calculation
The Department estimates that the
changes to § 602.22 in the final rule will
reduce burden on recognized
institutional accrediting agencies. Under
the final rule, the definition of
substantive change will include a more
precise set of situations, achieve a better
balance of which changes require
additional oversight, and provide
deference to recognized accrediting
agencies to make the decisions on the
specific types of substantive changes
they review and approve.
We estimate there will be a reduction
of 16 burden hours per institutional
agency annually.
34 Institutional Accrediting Agencies ×
16 Hours = 544 less annual Burden
Hours
§ 602.23 Operating Procedures All
Agencies Must Have
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.23(c)(1) will
include preaccredited institutions. Prior
to the final rule, the regulations only
required that recognized accrediting
agencies review complaints received for
accredited institutions.
The final rule in § 602.23(c)(3) will
require agencies to also review conflicts
of interest and require agencies to
document actions when complaints
about institutions are reviewed.
The final rule in § 602.23(d) will
require that a recognized accrediting
agency have operating procedures that
ensure that institutions or programs it

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68709

accredits will publicly disclose any
action by the agency that triggers the
enforcement timeline provision in
§ 602.20(a) or (b).
The final rule in § 602.23 will prevent
recognized agencies from having
policies that would require institutions
or programs to act in violation of any
Federal or State law. The agency will
also be required to have internal
controls to ensure compliance with
antitrust laws.
The final rule in § 602.23(k) will
require recognized agencies to have a
timely procedure to accelerate the
comprehensive accreditation process for
an institution or program seeking initial
accreditation.
Lastly, the final rule in § 602.23(l) will
require recognized agencies to establish
and maintain at least one structured
mechanism through which currently
enrolled students, employed staff, and
employed faculty of accredited or
preaccredited institutions or programs
may communicate directly with the
agency.
Burden Calculation
In 2019, the Department estimated
that it would take 2 hours annually for
each accrediting agency to comply with
§ 602.23. We now estimate that by
adding these additional consumer
protection provisions in the final rule, it
would take each agency an additional
two hours annually to comply.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 2 Hours =
100 Burden Hours
§ 602.24 Additional Procedures
Certain Institutional Agencies Must
Have
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.24 would
codify the current practice of most
agencies that a peer or independent site
visitor accompany accrediting agency
staff during on-site reviews, clarify
when institutions must submit teach-out
plans and agreements, and establish
clear timelines and documentation
expectations.
The final rule in § 602.24 will also
enhance transparency and student
support by requiring accrediting
agencies to coordinate teach-outs,
ensure transcript access and transfer
pathways, and notify other agencies
when cross-agency agreements are
approved. Additionally, institutions
will be required to update and publicly
disclose comprehensive transfer of
credit policies, adopt consistent criteria
for evaluating comparable credits,
prohibit discriminatory denials, and
provide students with an appeals
process.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68710

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Prior to this final rule, the regulations
did not distinguish between the
circumstances requiring institutions to
provide teach-out plans versus teach-out
agreements. Under the final rule,
institutions will be required to submit a
teach-out plan within 30 days when
specified events occur, such as when an
institution’s certification status changes
from full to provisional. On the other
hand, teach-out agreements will be
required within the same 30-day
window when institutions experience
triggering events that signal heightened
operational risk, including financial
concerns or adverse actions. To ensure
institutions act promptly when they are
unable to secure a teach-out agreement,
the Department adds a new requirement
mandating that institutions provide
their accrediting agency and the State
with documentation explaining why a
teach-out agreement could not be
secured within 30 days. In addition,
institutions in this situation will be
required to notify the Department,
which may then require the institution
to provide proof of financial protection
to safeguard students in the event of
closure.
Prior to the final rule, the regulations
required institutional accrediting
agencies to evaluate teach-out
agreements based on elements that went
beyond what the HEA requires, and
provided insufficient contingency
measures for institutions that closed.
Under the final rule, accrediting
agencies will be required to coordinate
with institutions to secure teach-out
agreements, review teach-out plans and
agreements and confirm that students
retain access to transcripts and transfer
pathways. In addition, if a teach-out
agreement includes a program or
institution that is accredited by another
recognized agency, the accrediting
agency must notify the other accrediting
agency of its approval.
Burden Calculation
The final rule will remove several
overly prescriptive requirements that
are not supported in the statutory
framework. The removal of these
requirements will decrease unnecessary
burdens on institutional accrediting
agencies and institutions. However,
several other consumer protection
provisions in § 602.24 will add burden
on institutional accrediting agencies.
Requiring a peer or independent site
visitor to accompany accrediting agency
staff during on-site reviews will require
some accrediting agencies to assign
additional peer or independent site
visitors to be present during site visits.
As noted above, most agencies already
have such a site visitor present during

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

on-site reviews, and the Department
estimates that codifying this practice in
the regulations as a quality assurance
criterion for all recognized agencies will
only impact several agencies.
Recognized accrediting agencies will
also be required to request and review
documents from institutions and
maintain communication with
institutions and State agencies, another
common practice.
In the NPRM, the Department
estimated that this new requirement
would take approximately 470 hours for
each agency and each institution to
initially implement this provision of the
final rule. However, the Department
found that its analysis in the NPRM was
incorrect because it mistakenly included
burden for all institutions when the
provisions in the final rule will only
apply to recognized agencies. The
Department also reassessed its estimates
in the NPRM for the one-time burden on
institutional agencies to implement this
provision of the final rule.
To implement these new regulations,
institutional accrediting agencies will be
required to review and identify the
scope of the new regulations (20 hours),
amend policies and procedures (40
hours), train volunteers and staff (100
hours). The Department estimates that
this will take approximately 160 hours
per institutional accrediting agency.
§ 602.26 Notification of Accrediting
Decisions
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.26 will make
minor modifications to the requirements
for accrediting agencies to report
accrediting decisions to the Secretary.
Recognized accrediting agencies will
now be required to maintain a record of
all actions taken against institutions or
programs accredited by the agency on
its website for a period of at least five
years.

systems or train staff to keep their
website up to date with actions taken for
each institution or program. We
estimate this will add 100 burden hours
per year.
100 Burden Hours × 50 Accrediting
Agencies = 5,000 Burden Hours
§ 602.27 Other Information an Agency
Must Provide the Department
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.27 will require
more frequent updates of an agency’s
accredited and preaccredited
institutions and programs to the
Department’s website directory. The
proposed reporting requirements would
require agencies to submit regular and
timely updates throughout the year
rather than an annual list.
Burden Calculation
Complying with these requirements in
the final rule will require recognized
accrediting agencies to expand their
reporting processes to allow for more
frequent reporting submissions to the
Department. Agencies are already
accustomed to reporting actions taken.
In 2023, the Department estimated
that each website update would take an
agency 20 minutes to complete. Under
the final rule, we estimate that this will
take an average of 2 hours per update.
More frequent updates will also increase
burden for this regulation. Before this
final rule, accrediting agencies were
required to submit an update to the
Department’s website directory once per
year. Under the final regulation,
agencies are required to submit regular
and timely updates throughout the year.
If an agency updates the Department’s
website directory four times per year,
this increases burden to 8 additional
burden hours per agency per year.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 8 Hours =
400 Burden Hours

Burden Calculation

§ 602.28 Regard for Decisions of States
and Other Accrediting Agencies

Prior to the final rule, Section 602.26
required recognized agencies to
maintain on their website a clear record
of all actions taken for each institution
or program it accredits or preaccredits
for a period of at least five years. The
final rule provides additional
transparency and consumer protections
which adds burden to accrediting
agencies. This additional burden
includes requiring agencies to expand
their monitoring and reporting
processes. Agencies will need to review
the new requirements and create a
process to ensure their website is
compliant with this proposed rule.
Agencies may also have to update their

Requirements
The final rule in § 602.28 requires
accrediting agencies to expand the
function of reviewing the accreditation
or preaccreditation of certain
institutions and allow agencies to place
institutions on a show cause or
equivalent status. This change allows
agencies to more precisely specify that
programs, not just institutions, are
subject to review by an agency when
another recognized agency has initiated
an adverse action or placed a program
on probation or an equivalent status.
The final rule will also expand the term
‘‘other recognized agencies’’ to include
State and Federal oversight agencies to

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
provide increased accountability for
institutions or programs subject to
negative or adverse actions by those
entities.
Burden Calculation
Complying with these new
regulations will require agencies to
expand their institutional review
processes. We estimate this would
require 30 additional burden hours per
year.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 30 Hours =
1,500 Burden Hours
§ 602.30 Agency Applications and
Reports To Be Submitted to the
Department
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.30 will
modernize how accrediting agencies
submit applications and reports to the
Department. The submission timeline
and concurrent submission
requirements are removed, and there is
a new requirement for an accrediting
agency to submit a written application
to the Secretary if it seeks a contraction
of scope. The final rule will also
prohibit an accrediting agency from
prematurely redacting business and
other non-Personally Identifiable
Information (PII) in its applications and
reports submitted to the Department.
Burden Calculation

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Section 602.30 will impose only a
nominal amount of burden on
recognized accrediting agencies. Prior to
this final rule, there has been no
requirement for an agency to apply for
a contraction of scope. Based on
historical trends, we estimate that fewer
than 1 accrediting agency per year will
apply for a contraction of scope.
In 2019, the Department estimated it
would take 20 hours per expansion of
scope application. However, since the
requirements for contraction of scope
are simply a notification and require
less explanation and documentation
than expansion, we estimate it would
take only 1 hour to complete a
contraction of scope application. If only
1 agency submits a contraction of scope
application every 2 years this adds .5
burden hours per year.
.5 Accrediting Agencies × 1 Hour = .5
Total Burden Hours
§ 602.31 Procedures for Submitting
Applications for Recognition and
Renewal of Recognition
Requirements
The final rule in § 602.31 will change
the application process for recognition
or renewal of recognition to provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

specific instructions and requirements
based on scope of agency activities.
Specifically, under the change in the
final rule, if institutions accredited by
an agency receive a substantial portion
of all Title IV, HEA program funds,
institutional accrediting agencies
seeking initial or renewed recognition
will be required to submit a
comprehensive application for
recognition. When not designated for
review, the institutional accrediting
agency would submit an application
demonstrating its adherence to the
regulatory requirements. When
submitting information to the
Department, agencies are no longer
required to redact certain information
prior to submission.
Burden Calculation
The changes in the final rule to
§ 602.31 will reduce burden on
accrediting agencies. In 2019, the
Department estimated that accrediting
agencies would require 285 additional
hours of burden or 5.37 hours per
agency. The Department estimates that
removing these requirements eliminates
268.5 burden hours (5.37 hours * 50
agencies).

68711

written compliance report per year. We
estimate this response would take an
agency 15 hours to outline, draft,
complete, and transmit it to the
Department.
12 Accrediting Agencies × 15 Hours =
180 Burden Hours
§ 602.34

Advisory Committee Meetings

Requirements
The final rule in § 602.34 will require
the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI) to review applications for
contractions of scope. The Department
also now requires that accrediting
agencies post public notice of upcoming
NACIQI reviews.
Burden Calculation
Under the final rule, agencies will be
required to post notices of upcoming
reviews to be completed by NACIQI.
The Department estimates this will take
2 hours per agency per year to
determine if notification is necessary
and publish any relevant information.
50 Accrediting Agencies × 2 Hours =
100 Burden Hours
§ 668.43 Institutional and
Programmatic Information

§ 602.32 Procedures for Review of an
Expansion of Scope, a Contraction of
Requirements
Scope, Compliance Reports, or Increases
The final rule in § 668.43(a)(11) will
in Headcount Enrollment
add an additional requirement to the
information that institutions
Requirements
participating in the Federal student aid
The final rule in § 602.32 will revise
programs are required to provide to
procedures for expansions and
enrolled and prospective students.
contractions of scope, compliance
Specifically, the final rule will add an
reports, and increases in headcount.
Specifically, under § 602.32(a)(1) and (2) additional student consumer disclosure
that requires institutions to inform
of the final rule, the Department will
students and prospective students of the
consider applications for an expansion
or contraction of an accrediting agency’s timeline by which a transcript must be
submitted for timely review for transfer
scope only when submitted together
of credit. This timeline must conclude
with an application for recognition,
prior to the student’s enrollment,
unless Department staff, at their
registration, or making a nonrefundable
discretion, elect to review such a
financial commitment, so that a
request independently.
prospective student will know how
For compliance reports, Department
many credits that they have earned at
staff will complete their evaluation and
other institutions will transfer to a new
a draft analysis. The draft, along with
institution before he or she incurs cost
any materials received by the
and time at that institution.
Department, will be sent to the agency
Before the final rule, institutions were
identifying any potential areas of
only required under this section to
noncompliance. The agency will be
provide a description of the transfer of
invited to submit a written response
credit policies established by the
within at least 45 days.
institution, including a statement of the
Under § 602.32(c), reports related to
institution’s current transfer of credit
increases in headcount enrollment
policies that included: any established
submitted pursuant to § 602.30(d) will
criteria the institution uses regarding
be processed by the Department using
the transfer of credit earned at another
the same procedures applicable to
institution and any types of institutions
compliance reports.
or sources from which the institution
Burden Calculation
will not accept credits; a list of
institutions with which the institution
The Department estimates there will
has established an articulation
be 12 agencies invited to respond to a

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68712

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

agreement; and written criteria used to
evaluate and award credit for prior
learning experience including, but not
limited to, service in the armed forces,
paid or unpaid employment, or other
demonstrated competency or learning.
The final rule in § 668.43(c) will also
require that if an institution declines to
award credit under its transfer of credit
policy, the institution must provide a
written rationale to the student as to
why the transfer credit was not accepted
and provide information on each course
that did not result in transfer credit.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Burden Calculation
The final rule in § 668.43(a)(11) will
require institutions to update their
transfer of credit disclosure to include a
timeline for submission of transcripts
that meets the requirements of the new
regulations. The Department notes that
all institutions already have policies
and procedures for submission of
transcripts under their current transfer
of credit policy. However, while this is
not a new requirement, the Department
acknowledges that some institutions
may need to revise their timelines to
comply with the new requirements. In

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

calculating administrative burden with
the new requirements, the Department
assumes institutions will continue their
current practices to receive transcripts
and send their required disclosures and
communications to students
electronically.
In the NPRM, the Department
estimated that this new requirement
would take approximately 470 hours per
institution to initially implement. After
reviewing its prior analysis in response
to the comments, the Department found
that its analysis in the NPRM included
burden associated with complying with
existing requirements in addition to the
new requirements in the final rule. The
Department has revised its estimates, as
explained below.
Institutions will be required to review
the requirements and scope of the new
regulations (5 hours), identify the scope
of the new requirements (10 hours), and
amend policies and procedures (25
hours). The Department estimates that
this will take approximately 40 hours
per institution one time.
The Department also reassessed its
estimates for student reporting burden
from its estimate in the NPRM. The

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

analysis in the NPRM improperly
identified the regulation as a new
reporting requirement. Students seeking
transfer of credits already submit
transcripts from other institutions to
new institutions and the new
regulations do not change this practice
or impose a new requirement on
students. In fact, the new regulations
will likely benefit students by ensuring
that they do not unwittingly enroll at a
new institution under the false
presumption that the credits they
earned at other institutions will be
accepted toward a certificate or degree
at that institution.
Estimated Annual Burden and
Respondent Costs Table
For institutions, we used the median
hourly wage for Education
Administrators, Postsecondary (11–
9033) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. In 2025 this was $50.29. To
account for overhead costs and benefits,
the Department has multiplied this
amount by two, resulting in hourly costs
of $100.58.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

68713

ER30OC26.027</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.028</GPH>

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

68714

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

4. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA has
determined that this rule does meet the
criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies
assess anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule that would
impose spending costs on State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or
on the private sector, in any 1 year of

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

68715

$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated
annually for inflation. That threshold is
currently approximately $206 million.
The Department believes that this rule
will not result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, in
excess of the threshold.

E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM

30OCR2

ER30OC26.029</GPH>

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

68716

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to E.O. 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
One of the objectives of the E.O. is to
foster an intergovernmental partnership
and strengthen Federalism. The E.O.
relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Assessment of Education Impact
In accordance with Section 411 of the
General Education Provisions Act, 20
U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary requests
comments on whether these final
regulations would require transmission
of information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2

Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires us to provide
meaningful and timely input by State
and local elected officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications.
‘‘Federalism implications’’ means
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The regulations
do not have Federalism implications.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person(s) listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document in an accessible format.
The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.Federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:43 Oct 29, 2026

Jkt 271001

search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign
relations, Grant programs—education,
Loan programs—education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 602
Colleges and universities, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and
procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Grant programs—
education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid, Vocational
education.
Nicholas Kent,
Under Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary of Education
amends parts 600, 602, and 668 of title
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 600—INSTITUTIONAL
ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER
EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS
AMENDED
■ 1. The authority citation for part 600

continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003,
1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b, and 1099c, unless
otherwise noted.
■ 2. Amend § 600.11 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and
■ b. Removing the parenthetical

authority citation at the end of the
section.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 600.11 Special rules regarding
institutional accreditation or
preaccreditation.

(a) Change of accrediting agencies. (1)
For purposes of §§ 600.4(a)(5)(i),
600.5(a)(6), and 600.6(a)(5)(i), the
Secretary does not recognize the
accreditation or preaccreditation of an
otherwise eligible institution if that
institution is in the process of changing
its accrediting agency, unless the
institution provides the following to the
Secretary:
(i) All materials related to its prior
accreditation or preaccreditation.
(ii) Materials demonstrating
reasonable cause for changing its
accrediting agency. The Secretary will
determine such cause to be reasonable
unless the Secretary determines that the

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

institution is seeking the change in
order to—
(A) Evade or circumvent a
requirement of Federal law or
regulation;
(B) Avoid or delay enforcement or
oversight by the Department or an
accrediting agency;
(C) Obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA
programs through misrepresentation or
other unlawful means; or
(D) Otherwise undermine the integrity
of the title IV, HEA programs.
(2) The institution must publicly
disclose within 10 business days on its
website and make reasonable efforts to
notify all current students, and recent
graduates for whom they have active
contact information, of the change of
accrediting agency.
(b) Multiple accreditation. (1) An
institution may obtain accreditation or
preaccreditation from more than one
accrediting agency recognized by the
Secretary if the institution provides the
following to the Secretary:
(i) Materials related to its prior
accreditation or preaccreditation;
(ii) A written explanation showing
reasonable cause for having multiple
accreditors. The Secretary will
determine such cause to be reasonable
unless the Secretary determines that the
institution is seeking to be accredited by
more than one accrediting agency in
order to—
(A) Evade or circumvent a
requirement of Federal law or
regulation;
(B) Avoid or delay enforcement or
oversight by the Department or an
accrediting agency;
(C) Obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA
programs through misrepresentation or
other unlawful means; or
(D) Otherwise undermine the integrity
of the title IV, HEA programs.
(2) The Secretary will not determine
the cause of having multiple accrediting
agencies to be unreasonable due to a
withdrawal, revocation, other
termination of accreditation, probation
or equivalent, show cause order, or
suspension order.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 602—THE SECRETARY’S
RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING
AGENCIES
■ 3. The authority citation for part 602

continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b, unless
otherwise noted.
■ 4. Revise § 602.2 to read as follows:

§ 602.2 How do I kn