Office of Postsecondary Education - U.S. Department of Education

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66853WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2acceptable institutional practices atcomparable institutions of highereducation.We believe that it is necessary toinclude § 602.24(f)(1)(ii) in theregulations, rather than solely in theDepartment’s ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing/Reviewing Petitions and ComplianceReports.’’ The regulations provide therequirements for accrediting agenciesrecognized by the Secretary whereas the‘‘Guidelines for Preparing/ReviewingPetitions and Compliance Reports’’provides guidance to accreditingagencies seeking the Secretary’srecognition and does not have the forceof regulations. We will rely upon theaccrediting agencies to choose themethods used to evaluate institutions’processes for assigning credit hours.Changes: None.Comment: One commenter expressedconcern that the reference to ‘‘commonlyaccepted practice in higher education’’in proposed § 602.24(f)(1)(ii) mayrequire institutions that primarily useclock hours to adopt credit-hourassignment policies that were developedby traditional four-year degree grantinginstitutions, but are unsuitable forspecialized institutions.Discussion: The reference to‘‘commonly accepted practice in highereducation’’ in § 602.24(f)(1)(ii) is not arequirement for clock-hour institutionsto convert to credit hours.Changes: None.Notification RequirementsComment: Several commentersopposed proposed § 602.24(f)(4) thatwould require an accrediting agency,that identifies noncompliance with theagency’s policies regarding aninstitution’s credit assignments during areview under proposed § 602.24(f), tonotify the Secretary of the identifieddeficiencies. A few commentersbelieved that proposed § 602.24(f)(4)lacked due process provisions. Some ofthese commenters believed that thenotification requirement would forceaccrediting agencies to report minor ortrivial credit-hour problems to theDepartment. One commenter believedthat institutions would not be affordedan opportunity to respond to allegationsor attempt immediate corrective actionswhich may lead to delayed resolutionsto credit assignment problems.A few commenters believed thatproposed § 602.24(f)(4) was redundantwith regard to the existing notificationrequirements in § 602.27. Thesecommenters suggested removingproposed paragraph § 602.24(f)(4) andcross-referencing § 602.27.One commenter believed thatproposed § 602.24(f)(4) contradicts therequirements of proposed § 602.24(f)(3)which requires an accrediting agency totake appropriate action to address anyinstitutional deficiencies it identifies aspart of its review under proposed§ 602.24(f)(1)(i).A few commenters believed that theterms ‘‘systemic noncompliance’’ and‘‘significant noncompliance’’ inproposed § 602.24(f)(4) needclarification. One commenter suggestedspecifying that if an accrediting agencyhas any reason to believe that aninstitution is failing to meet its title IV,HEA program responsibilities, or isengaged in fraud or abuse, then thatagency must notify the Department inaccordance with existing regulations.Another commenter suggestedspecifying that if an accrediting agencydetermines that an institution does notdevelop and adhere to an acceptablecredit assignment policy, then theagency must promptly notify theSecretary. This commenter alsosuggested that because institutions willbe developing new credit policies, theyshould be afforded an adjustment periodto receive and react to guidance fromaccrediting agencies on their creditassignment policies prior to beingreported to the Secretary.Discussion: We agree with thecommenters that § 602.24(f)(4) does notspecify due process provisions forinstitutions. Section 602.24(f)(4) onlyrequires an accrediting agency to reportits findings and an agency’s process ofestablishing and reporting a finding willrely upon the agency’s own procedures.The Secretary recognition processensures that accrediting agencyprocedures provide due process.Further, we believe § 602.24(f)(4) isneeded because it corresponds to theprovisions in § 602.27 that require anaccrediting agency to submitinformation upon request from theSecretary about an accredited orpreaccredited institution’s compliancewith its title IV, HEA programresponsibilities. The provisions in§ 602.24(f)(4) specify the agency’sexisting responsibility under § 602.27with regard to inappropriateinstitutional processes for assigningcredits.We do not agree with the commenterwho believed that § 602.24(f)(3) and(f)(4) is contradictory. The provisions in§ 602.24(f)(3) require an accreditingagency to take appropriate action toaddress any institutional deficiencies itidentifies as part of its review under§ 602.24(f)(1)(i). Section 602.24(f)(4),however, requires an accrediting agencyto notify the Secretary of any severedeficiencies such as systemic orsignificant noncompliance with theVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2agency’s policies identified at aninstitution during a review under§ 602.24(f).The terms ‘‘systemic noncompliance’’and ‘‘significant noncompliance’’ do notencompass trivial or minor deficiencies.The term ‘‘systemic noncompliance’’refers to an institutional process forawarding credits that is fundamentallyflawed with regard to assigning credithours in accordance with the credithourdefinition in § 600.2 and itsaccrediting agencies policies. The term‘‘significant noncompliance’’ refers toinstitutional assignment of credit hoursto individual courses or programs thatare particularly egregious with regard tothe compliance with § 600.2.We do not believe that it is necessaryto delay the effective date of thedefinition of a credit hour in § 600.2 or§ 602.24(f) in these final regulations. Aninstitution must implement thedefinition of a credit hour regardless ofwhether its accrediting agency hasissued guidance on the implementationof § 602.24(f). While an accreditingagency is required to implement§ 602.24(f) effective July 1, 2011, we willreview on a case-by-case basis, based onan adequate justification as determinedby the Secretary, any reasonable requestfrom an accrediting agency for a delayedimplementation date.Changes: None.State Agency Procedures (§ 603.24(c))GeneralComment: Several commentersopposed proposed § 603.24(c). A fewcommenters believed that the proposedprovisions would be confusing for Stateagencies and that State agencies do nothave the administrative capabilities toreview institutions’ credit-hour policies.One commenter believed that theproposed provisions would lead toinconsistencies and inequalitiesbetween States based on States’ reviewsof institutions’ credit policies andenforcement of institutions’ compliancewith the proposed credit-hour definitionat § 600.2.One commenter believed that someState agencies, such as those in Iowa,would not be able to comply withproposed § 603.24(c) because theagencies may operate within the definedscope authorized by the State code andcompliance would require changes inState law. This commenter also believedthat some State agencies would not havethe expertise to evaluate institutions’credit policies.One commenter suggested specifyingthat if a State agency determines that aninstitution does not develop and adhereto an acceptable credit assignment