Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, and the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, 39498-39533 [E9-18368]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39498-39533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18368]



[[Page 39497]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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







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



34 CFR Parts 600 and 602



 Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
Amended, and the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 39498]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 600 and 602

RIN 1840-AD00
[Docket ID ED-2009-OPE-0009]


Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
as Amended, and the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations in 34 CFR part 
600, governing institutional eligibility, and part 602, governing the 
Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies. The Secretary is 
amending these regulations to implement changes to the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), resulting from enactment of the Higher 
Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), Public Law 109-171, and 
the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), Public Law 110-315, and to 
clarify, improve, and update the current regulations.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before September 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only 
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. 
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``How to Use This Site.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Ann Clough, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 
room 8043, Washington, DC 20006-8542.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from 
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, 
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters 
should be careful to include in their comments only information that 
they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Clough. Telephone: (202) 502-7484 
or via the Internet at: ann.clough@ed.gov
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the 
specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of 
your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order 
as the proposed regulations.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should 
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while 
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. 
You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room 8043, 1990 K 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to 
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Negotiated Rulemaking

    Section 492 of the HEA requires the Secretary, before publishing 
any proposed regulations for programs authorized by title IV of the HEA 
(title IV, HEA programs), to obtain public involvement in the 
development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and 
recommendations from individuals and representatives of groups involved 
in, or affected by, the Federal recognition of accrediting agencies, 
the Secretary must subject the proposed regulations for the title IV, 
HEA programs to a negotiated rulemaking process. All proposed 
regulations that the Department publishes must conform to final 
agreements resulting from that process unless the Secretary reopens the 
process or provides a written explanation to the participants in that 
process stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the 
agreements. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process 
may be found at: www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/.
    On September 8, 2008, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 51990) announcing our intent to establish 
negotiated rulemaking committees to develop proposed regulations to (1) 
implement the changes made to the HEA by the HEOA, and (2) possibly 
address the provision added to section 207(c) of the HEA by the HEOA 
that requires the Secretary to submit to a negotiated rulemaking 
process any regulations the Secretary chooses to develop under amended 
section 207(b)(2) of the HEA, regarding the prohibition on a teacher 
preparation program from which the State has withdrawn approval or 
terminated financial support from accepting or enrolling any student 
who received title IV aid.
    On December 31, 2008, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 80314) announcing our intent to establish five 
negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations. The 
notice indicated that no requests from the public were received to 
negotiate the provision added to section 207(c) of the HEA. The five 
committees that were established were: (1) A committee on lender and 
general loan issues (Loans Team I); (2) a committee on school-based 
loan issues (Loans Team II); (3) a committee on accreditation issues; 
(4) a committee on discretionary grant programs; and (5) a committee on 
general and non-loan programmatic issues. The notice informed the 
public that, due to the large volume of changes made by the HEOA that 
needed to be implemented through negotiated rulemaking, not all 
provisions would be addressed during this round of committee meetings. 
The notice requested nominations of individuals

[[Page 39499]]

for membership on the committees who could represent the interests 
significantly affected by the proposed regulations and had demonstrated 
expertise or experience in the relevant subjects under negotiation. The 
Accreditation Committee (``the Committee'') met in three sessions to 
develop proposed regulations: session 1, March 4-6, 2009; session 2, 
April 21-23, 2009; and session 3, May 18-19, 2009. This notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes regulations relating to 
accreditation that were discussed by the Committee.
    The Department developed a list of proposed regulatory changes from 
advice and recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations 
in testimony to the Department in a series of six public hearings held 
on:
     September 19, 2008, at Texas Christian University in Fort 
Worth, Texas.
     September 29, 2008, at the University of Rhode Island in 
Providence, Rhode Island.
     October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine University in Malibu, 
California.
     October 6, 2008, at Johnson C. Smith University in 
Charlotte, North Carolina.
     October 8, 2008, at the U.S. Department of Education in 
Washington, DC.
     October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga Community College in 
Warrensville Heights, Ohio.
    In addition, the Department accepted written comments on possible 
regulatory changes submitted directly to the Department by interested 
parties and organizations. All regional meetings and a summary of all 
comments received orally and in writing are posted as background 
material in the docket and may also be accessed at www.ed.gov/HEOA. 
Staff within the Department also identified issues for discussion and 
negotiation.
    The Accreditation Committee was made up of the following members:
     Michale McComis, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools 
and Colleges of Technology, and Roger Williams (alternate), Accrediting 
Council for Continuing Education and Training.
     Ralph Wolff, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges 
and Universities, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and 
Belle Wheelan (alternate), Commission on Colleges, Southern Association 
of Colleges and Schools.
     Sharon Tanner, The National League for Nursing Accrediting 
Commission, and Betty Horton (alternate), Association of Specialized 
and Professional Accreditors.
     Marshall Hill, Nebraska Coordinating Commission for 
Postsecondary Education, and Kathryn Dodge (alternate), New Hampshire 
Postsecondary Education Commission.
     Alan Mabe, University of North Carolina, and Mary Anne 
Hanner (alternate), Eastern Illinois University.
     Sonia Jacobson, Georgetown University, and Susan Hattan 
(alternate), National Association of Independent Colleges and 
Universities.
     Ronald Blumenthal, Kaplan Higher Education, and William 
Clohan (alternate), DeVry Inc.
     Linda Michalowski, California Community Colleges, and Jim 
Hermes (alternate), American Association of Community Colleges.
     Michael Offerman, Capella Education Company, and Muriel 
Oaks (alternate), Washington State University.
     Phyllis Worthy Dawkins, Johnson C. Smith University, and 
Jos[eacute] Jaime Rivera (alternate), University of the Sacred Heart.
     Kendal Nystedt, University of Arizona, and Jacob Littler 
(alternate), Mesabi Range College.
     Terry Hartle, American Council on Education, and Becky 
Timmons (alternate), American Council on Education.
     Kay Gilcher, U.S. Department of Education.
    The Committee's protocols provided that the Committee would operate 
by consensus, meaning there must be no dissent by any member in order 
for the Committee to be considered to have reached agreement. Under the 
protocols, if the Committee reaches final consensus on all issues, the 
Department will use the consensus-based language in the proposed 
regulations and members of the Committee and the organizations whom 
they represent will refrain from commenting negatively on the package, 
except where permitted by the agreed-upon protocols.
    During its meetings, the Committee reviewed and discussed drafts of 
proposed regulations. At the final meeting in May 2009, the Committee 
reached consensus on all of the proposed regulations in this NPRM. More 
information on the work of this committee may be found at: www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/accreditation.html.

Summary of Proposed Changes

    This NPRM reflects the Department's proposals to revise current 
regulations and adopt new regulations governing the recognition of 
accrediting agencies as a result of the following changes made to the 
HEA by the HERA and the HEOA:
     The addition of a definition of ``distance education'' and 
separate references to distance education and correspondence education. 
(See section 103 of the HEA).
     The addition of an eligible program under title IV of the 
HEA--an instructional program that uses direct assessment of a 
student's learning in lieu of credit or clock hours. (See section 
418(b)(4) of the HEA).
     The addition of a definition of a ``teach-out plan'' and a 
new provision that agencies must require the institutions they accredit 
to submit a teach-out plan to the agency under certain circumstances. 
(See sections 487(f)(2) and 496(c)(3) of the HEA).
     The addition of several new provisions pertaining to 
distance education and correspondence education. (See sections 
496(a)(4)(B) and 496(q) of the HEA).
     Expanded due process requirements for agencies. (See 
section 496(a)(6) of the HEA).
     The addition of a requirement that accrediting agencies 
confirm that institutions have transfer of credit policies. (See 
section 496(c)(9) of the HEA).
     The addition of a requirement that accreditation team 
members be well-trained and knowledgeable about their responsibilities 
regarding distance education. (See section 496(c)(1) of the HEA).
     The addition of requirements that agencies monitor 
enrollment growth at institutions. (See sections 496(c)(2) and 496(q) 
of the HEA).
     Changes to agency disclosure requirements. (See section 
496(c)(7) of the HEA).
    The NPRM also reflects changes to existing regulations governing 
institutional eligibility by revising the definition of 
``correspondence course'' to be compatible with the new definition of 
``correspondence education'' in the accrediting agency recognition 
regulations.
    Further, the NPRM reflects changes to existing regulations 
governing the process for recognizing accrediting agencies, including 
the following:
     The addition of a definition of ``recognition''.
     Modifications to record-keeping and confidentiality 
requirements.
     Combining current subparts C and D into one subpart in 
order to streamline procedures for agency review; establishing the 
senior Department official as the deciding official, with appeal to the 
Secretary;

[[Page 39500]]

and providing a list of the various laws regarding public requests for 
information with which the Secretary must comply.
     Additions and modifications to existing requirements 
related to substantive change.

Significant Proposed Regulations

    We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate 
sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses.

Definitions

Correspondence Course (Sec.  600.2)

    Statute: There is no definition of ``correspondence course'' in the 
HEA. Institutional eligibility requirements in section 102(a)(3) of the 
HEA generally provide that institutions offering more than 50 percent 
of their courses by correspondence, or enrolling 50 percent or more of 
their students in correspondence courses, are ineligible for title IV, 
HEA program assistance.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  600.2 contains a definition of 
``correspondence course''. The definition describes how a 
correspondence course is delivered to students who are not physically 
attending classes at the institution. It does not address the nature of 
the pedagogy.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would amend the 
definition of ``correspondence course'' in Sec.  600.2 to draw a 
clearer contrast with distance education, defined in section 103 of the 
HEA. The proposed definition addresses pedagogy by noting that the 
interaction between the instructor and the student in a correspondence 
course is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily 
initiated by the student. The proposed definition also notes that a 
correspondence course is typically designed so that a student proceeds 
through the course at the student's own pace.
    Reasons: Because of the different statutory treatment of distance 
education and correspondence courses, it is critical to differentiate 
between the two delivery modes. A definition of correspondence course 
that focuses exclusively on the exchange of materials between the 
institution and a student does not draw a useful distinction because 
both distance education and correspondence courses are delivered to 
students who are separated from the instructor. Given that the primary 
distinguishing factor between the two is the nature of the interaction 
between the instructor and the student, the definition must include 
information about this characteristic of the pedagogy, or instructional 
model.

Distance Education (Sec. Sec.  600.2; 602.3)

    Statute: Section 103 of the HEA defines ``distance education'' as 
education that uses one or more technologies to deliver education to 
students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular 
and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, 
either synchronously or asynchronously. The definition contains a list 
of technologies.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  600.2 do not 
include a definition of ``distance education''. However, current 
regulations in Sec.  600.2 include a definition of ``telecommunications 
course'', which was previously used in the HEA and corresponding 
regulations. This definition of ``telecommunications course'' is 
essentially the same as the new definition of ``distance education'' in 
the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
    Current regulations in Sec.  602.3 include a definition of 
``distance education'' that encompasses correspondence study.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add the 
statutory definition of ``distance education'' in both Sec. Sec.  600.2 
and 602.3. The definition would state that ``distance education'' means 
education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to 
students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular 
and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, 
either synchronously or asynchronously. The technologies may include 
the internet; one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, 
closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, 
satellite, or wireless communications devices; audio conferencing; or 
video cassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD-ROMs 
are used in a course in conjunction with any of the other technologies 
listed.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations reflect changes made by the HEOA.

Compliance Report (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: There is no definition of ``compliance report'' in the 
HEA. Under section 496(l) of the HEA, to continue to be recognized by 
the Secretary, an agency that has been determined by the Secretary to 
be out of compliance with any of the criteria for recognition, or to 
have failed to apply those criteria effectively, may be given no more 
than 12 months to come into compliance, except upon grant of an 
extension for good cause shown.
    Current Regulations: ``Compliance report'' is not used in the 
current regulations in part 602 governing the Secretary's recognition 
of accrediting agencies.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add a 
definition of ``compliance report'' in Sec.  602.3. A ``compliance 
report'' would be defined as a written report that the Department 
requires an agency to file to demonstrate that the agency has addressed 
deficiencies specified in a decision letter from the senior Department 
official or the Secretary.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would combine former subparts C 
and D, which detail the Secretary's process for recognizing accrediting 
agencies, and the process whereby an accrediting agency's recognition 
could be limited, suspended, or terminated, into a single subpart C. 
The proposed regulations in subpart C would allow agencies to be out of 
compliance for no more than 12 months, after which time a decision on 
recognition would be made on the basis of a compliance report. The 
proposed definition of ``compliance report'' in Sec.  602.3 describes 
this key component of the recognition process.

Correspondence Education (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: There is no definition of ``correspondence education'' in 
the HEA. Section 496(a)(4)(B) and (q) of the HEA includes references to 
correspondence education alongside references to distance education. 
Section 496(a)(4)(B) provides that if an agency has, or seeks to 
include, within its scope of recognition the evaluation of the quality 
of institutions or programs offering distance education or 
correspondence education, it must meet various requirements, which are 
specified in that section. It further provides that a recognized agency 
may add distance education or correspondence education to its scope of 
recognition by providing written notice to the Secretary. Section 
496(q) of the HEA provides that the Secretary must require a review at 
the next available National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality 
and Integrity (``NACIQI'' or ``Advisory Committee'') meeting of a 
change in scope of an accrediting agency that expanded its scope of 
recognition to include distance education or correspondence education 
by written notice to the Secretary, if the enrollment of an institution 
accredited by that agency that offers distance education or 
correspondence education increases by 50 percent or more within any one 
institutional fiscal year.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  602.3 include a

[[Page 39501]]

definition of ``distance education'' that encompasses correspondence 
study as well as education delivered to students using one or more 
technologies specified in the definition.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add a 
definition of ``correspondence education'' in Sec.  602.3. The proposed 
definition would clearly distinguish between correspondence education 
and distance education, particularly with respect to the nature of the 
interaction between the instructor and the students. ``Correspondence 
education'' would be defined as education provided through one or more 
courses by an institution under which the institution provides 
instructional materials, by mail or electronic transmission, including 
examinations on the materials, to students who are separated from the 
instructor. The proposed definition would specify that interaction 
between the instructor and the student is limited, is not regular and 
substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student and that 
correspondence courses are typically self-paced. The proposed 
definition would also specify that correspondence education is not 
distance education.
    Reasons: Section 496 of the HEA refers several times to ``distance 
education or correspondence education''. For example, the HEA requires 
that an agency's standards ``effectively address the quality of an 
institution's distance education or correspondence education'' and that 
an agency require ``an institution that offers distance education or 
correspondence education to have processes through which the 
institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance 
education or correspondence education course or program is the same 
student who participates in and completes the program and receives the 
academic credit.'' The separate references to these two types of 
education indicate that they are distinct from one another for HEA 
purposes.
    The Department originally proposed a definition of ``correspondence 
education'', adapted from the definition of ``correspondence course'' 
in current Sec.  600.2, that included ``home study'' and described how 
information is sent back and forth between the institution and the 
student. The non-Federal negotiators commented that the term ``home 
study'' is no longer in general use. In addition, they stated that the 
significant difference between distance education and correspondence 
education is that correspondence education generally is designed to be 
self-paced, with minimal interaction between the student and the 
instructor. The Department amended the proposed definition to remove 
the term ``home study'' and to include the concepts relating to 
pedagogy or instructional model.

Designated Federal Official (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: The HEA does not include a definition of ``Designated 
Federal Official''. Section 10(e) and (f) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appdx. 1, refers to a ``designated 
officer or employee of the Federal Government'' who has 
responsibilities under FACA related to advisory committee meetings.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations do not include a 
definition of ``Designated Federal Official''.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.  602.3 would 
define ``Designated Federal Official'' as the Federal officer 
designated under section 10(f) of FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appdx. 1.
    Reasons: Section 114(d)(2)(A) of the HEA authorizes the Chairperson 
of the NACIQI to establish the agenda for Advisory Committee meetings. 
Prior to passage of the HEOA, the Chairperson of NACIQI did not have 
this role. FACA requires that a designated officer or employee of the 
Federal Government approve the agenda for an advisory committee 
meeting. The proposed definition of ``Designated Federal Official'', 
which specifies the role of the Federal officer under FACA, is needed 
to clarify that, although the HEA now authorizes the Chairperson of the 
Advisory Committee to establish the agenda, it must still be approved 
by the Federal official designated under FACA.

Direct Assessment Program (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: Section 481(b)(4) of the HEA stipulates that for purposes 
of title IV, HEA programs, ``eligible program'' includes an 
instructional program that uses direct assessment of student learning, 
or recognizes the direct assessment of student learning by others, in 
lieu of credit hours or clock hours as a measure of student learning. 
The assessment must be consistent with the institution's or program's 
accreditation. The HEA also provides that the Secretary will determine 
initially whether each program for which an institution proposes to use 
direct assessment is an eligible program.
    Current Regulations: There are no current regulations in part 602 
that reflect direct assessment programs. Regulations for Federal 
Student Aid Programs in 34 CFR 668.10 list the information an 
institution must provide to the Secretary in order to have a direct 
assessment program approved as an eligible program for title IV, HEA 
purposes. 34 CFR 668.10 includes a requirement that an accrediting 
agency review and approve the program for inclusion in the 
institution's grant of accreditation, and that the agency evaluate the 
institution's claim of the direct assessment program's equivalence in 
terms of credit or clock hours.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add a 
definition of ``direct assessment program'' in Sec.  602.3 that 
incorporates the language of the HEA and includes the accrediting 
agency role in approving a direct assessment program for title IV, HEA 
purposes, consistent with the requirements in 34 CFR 668.10. A ``direct 
assessment program'' would be defined as an instructional program that, 
in lieu of credit hours or clock hours as a measure of student 
learning, utilizes direct assessment of student learning, or recognizes 
the direct assessment of student learning by others, and meets the 
conditions of 34 CFR 668.10. For title IV, HEA purposes, the 
institution must obtain approval for the direct assessment program from 
the Secretary under 34 CFR 668.10(g) or (h), as applicable. As part of 
that approval, the accrediting agency must evaluate the programs and 
include them in the institution's grant of accreditation or 
preaccreditation; and review and approve the institution's claim of 
each direct assessment program's equivalence in terms of credit or 
clock hours.
    Reasons: The proposed definition of ``direct assessment program'' 
would restate definitional language from the HEA, refer to the section 
of the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations that relate to 
direct assessment programs, and indicate the accrediting agency role in 
approving a direct assessment program. Some of the non-Federal 
negotiators indicated their unfamiliarity with direct assessment 
programs and asked for clarification of the term and of the phrase ``or 
recognizes the direct assessment of student learning by others.'' In 
particular, they asked whether prior learning assessment, where 
students demonstrate that they possess college-level knowledge of a 
subject that has been acquired outside of a traditional classroom 
setting, such as at work, through volunteer service, or through other 
experiences, would be covered by the proposed definition. In response, 
the Department explained that, because prior learning assessment is a 
process that results in a student being granted a certain number of 
academic credits (or credit hours), prior learning does not meet the 
definition of a direct assessment program.

[[Page 39502]]

    A direct assessment program is one where the institution identifies 
a set of competencies that a student must demonstrate through 
successful performance on assessments in order to be awarded an 
academic credential. The skills and knowledge that a student has 
acquired outside of the institution may help the student to complete 
the assessments associated with one or more of the competencies more 
quickly than another student, and to accelerate completion of a full 
program. A student who is enrolled in a direct assessment program is 
not required to earn a certain number of credits, or to remain in the 
program for a specific length of time. The institution may develop the 
assessments, or it may rely upon assessments developed by others, to 
measure the student's learning.
    The Department notes that ``direct assessment program'' has no 
fixed meaning outside the context of the title IV, HEA Federal student 
aid programs. The process that an institution has to go through to gain 
approval from the Secretary for a direct assessment program to be 
eligible for title IV, HEA program purposes under 34 CFR 668.10, which 
includes reviews and actions on the part of accrediting agencies, is 
sufficient to satisfy program eligibility requirements of the HEA.

Recognition (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: The HEA does not include a definition of ``recognition''.
    Current Regulations: There is no definition of ``recognition'' in 
the current regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add a 
definition of ``recognition'' in Sec.  602.3. Under the proposed 
definition, ``recognition'' would mean an unappealed determination by 
the senior Department official, or a determination by the Secretary on 
appeal, that an accrediting agency complies with the criteria for 
recognition and that the agency is effective in its application of 
those criteria. As a result of that determination of compliance, an 
accrediting agency that has been given a grant of recognition by the 
Secretary is regarded as a reliable authority regarding the quality of 
education or training offered by the institutions or programs it 
accredits. The proposed definition would specify that the grant remains 
in effect for the term specified except upon a determination made in 
accordance with subpart C, as revised in these proposed regulations, 
that the agency no longer complies with the criteria for recognition or 
that it is no longer effective in its application of those criteria.
    Reasons: The proposed definition would clarify that, through 
proceedings conducted under subpart C of part 602, the Department may 
withdraw recognition before the period of recognition granted expires. 
The definition would also reflect that, although an agency that is 
recognized is deemed a reliable authority regarding the quality of 
education or training offered by the institutions or programs it 
accredits, recognition is based on a determination that the agency is 
in compliance with the statutory and regulatory criteria for 
recognition and is effective in its application of those criteria.

Scope of Recognition (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: The HEA does not include a definition of ``scope of 
recognition''. Section 496(a)(4)(B) of the HEA requires an accrediting 
agency that has or wants to include distance education or 
correspondence education in its scope of recognition to demonstrate 
that its standards effectively address the quality of an institution's 
distance education or correspondence education.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  602.3 define 
``scope of recognition'' and identify five areas for which recognition 
may be granted.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would amend the 
definition of ``scope of recognition'' in Sec.  602.3 by adding the 
phrase ``or correspondence education'' to paragraph (5), which 
addresses activities related to distance education.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations reflect changes made by the HEOA.

Teach-Out Agreement (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: Section 496(c)(6) of the HEA requires that teach-out 
agreements between institutions be approved by the accrediting agency 
in accordance with its standards. The HEA does not provide a definition 
of ``teach-out agreement''.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  602.3 provide a 
definition of ``teach-out agreement'', which is a written agreement 
between institutions that provides for the equitable treatment of 
students. It applies in situations where an institution stops offering 
an educational program before all students enrolled in that program 
have completed their program of study. Under Sec.  602.24(c) of the 
current regulations, if an agency is an institutional accrediting 
agency, and its accreditation or preaccreditation enables institutions 
to obtain eligibility to participate in title IV, HEA programs, the 
agency must require an institution that enters into a teach-out 
agreement with another institution to submit that teach-out agreement 
to the agency for approval.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would amend the 
definition of ``teach-out agreement'' by limiting its scope to 
situations where an institution, or a location of an institution that 
provides one hundred percent of at least one program offered, ceases to 
operate before all enrolled students have completed their program of 
study. In addition, the definition would require that the agreement 
provide a reasonable opportunity for affected students to complete 
their program of study. The proposed changes to current regulations in 
Sec.  602.24(c) are discussed under ``Teach-out Plans and Agreements.''
    Reasons: The Department initially proposed amending the definition 
of ``teach-out agreement'' to make it clear that the agreement should 
provide for a reasonable opportunity for students to complete their 
program of study if an institution or an institutional location that 
provides one hundred percent of at least one program, stops offering 
one or more of its programs before all students have completed their 
program of study. There was consensus with adding the language about 
providing a reasonable opportunity for students to complete their 
program of study.
    However, several of the non-Federal negotiators objected to the 
proposal that a teach-out agreement cover an institutional location 
that stops offering one or more of its programs. They noted that this 
is a common occurrence and that it is the responsibility of the 
institution to respond to the needs of its students when this happens. 
A teach-out agreement should only apply in situations where the 
institution or location providing one hundred percent of at least one 
program ceases to operate. The Department concurred.

Teach-Out Plan (Sec.  602.3)

    Statute: Section 496(c)(3) of the HEA requires an institution to 
submit for approval to the accrediting agency a teach-out plan under 
specified conditions. Section 487(f)(2) of the HEA defines a ``teach-
out plan'' as a written plan developed by an institution that provides 
for the equitable treatment of students if an institution ceases to 
operate before all students have completed their program of study, and 
may include, if required by the institution's accrediting agency, a 
teach-out agreement between institutions.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations do not include a 
definition of ``teach-out plan''.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add a 
definition of ``teach-out plan'' in Sec.  602.3. The

[[Page 39503]]

proposed regulations would define a ``teach-out plan'' as a written 
plan developed by an institution that provides for the equitable 
treatment of students if an institution, or an institutional location 
that provides one hundred percent of at least one program, ceases to 
operate before all students have completed their program of study, and 
may include, if required by the institution's accrediting agency, a 
teach-out agreement between institutions.
    Reasons: The Department proposes a definition that incorporates the 
statutory definition and clarifies that the requirement for an 
institution to have a teach-out plan applies when an institutional 
location that provides one hundred percent of at least one program 
ceases to operate before all students have completed their program of 
study. This is consistent with the treatment of locations under the 
closed school discharge provisions in 34 CFR 682.402(d)(1)(ii)(C) and 
685.214(a)(2)(ii). Under these provisions, a student's loan may be 
discharged if the student is not able to complete the program of study 
for which the loan was provided because the institution, or any 
location or branch the student attended, closed. The proposed language 
was acceptable to the non-Federal negotiators.

Other Major Issues

Accreditation Team Members (Sec.  602.15)

    Statute: Section 496(c)(1) of the HEA stipulates that in order to 
be recognized by the Secretary as a reliable authority as to the 
quality of education or training offered by an institution seeking to 
participate in title IV, HEA programs, the agency must perform, at 
regularly established intervals, on-site inspections and reviews of 
institutions of higher education (which may include unannounced site 
visits) with particular focus on educational quality and program 
effectiveness, and ensure that accreditation team members are well-
trained and knowledgeable with respect to their responsibilities. The 
HEOA added a reference to distance education to the HEA's requirement 
that team members be well-trained and knowledgeable with respect to 
their responsibilities.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  602.15(a)(2) 
require individuals serving on agency review teams and decision-making 
bodies and establishing agency policies to be competent and 
knowledgeable, qualified by education and experience in their own 
right, and trained by the agency on its standards, policies, and 
procedures.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  602.15(a)(2) would clarify 
that an individual's qualifications and the agency's training of that 
individual on his or her responsibilities regarding the agency's 
standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site 
evaluations, apply or establish its policies, and make its accrediting 
and preaccrediting decisions, should be appropriate for that 
individual's role. In addition, the proposed regulations would specify 
that if an agency's scope of recognition includes the evaluation of 
distance education and correspondence education, then the individuals 
must be trained in their responsibilities regarding distance education 
and correspondence education.
    Reasons: The Department noted that the statutory language included 
the new reference to ``responsibilities regarding distance education'' 
and that in several other provisions of section 496 of the HEA, 
distance education is paired with correspondence education. The 
Department's initial proposal included a reference to ``correspondence 
education'' in this section but did not limit in any way the 
requirement that individuals be trained in their responsibilities 
regarding distance education and correspondence education. Some non-
Federal negotiators asked that the requirement apply only to those 
agencies that have distance education and correspondence education in 
their scope of recognition. The Department agreed with this suggestion 
and also with the observation made during the negotiations that only 
those individuals who evaluate institutions that offer distance 
education or correspondence education would need to be qualified and 
trained accordingly.
    A non-Federal negotiator presented a revised draft for 
consideration by the negotiators, which addressed this issue and 
further clarified the requirement. This language was acceptable to all 
the negotiators and is reflected in the proposed regulations.

Record Keeping and Confidentiality (Sec. Sec.  602.15; 602.27)

    Statute: Section 496(a) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
establish recognition criteria by which the Secretary will determine, 
for the purposes of the HEA or other Federal purposes, if an agency or 
association is a reliable authority as to the quality of education or 
training offered by the institutions or programs it accredits. These 
criteria require that the agency adhere to sound administrative 
requirements. Section 496(a)(4) provides that the Secretary's 
recognition criteria must require that recognized agencies consistently 
apply and enforce their standards for the duration of the accreditation 
period. Section 496(o) requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
establishing procedures for recognition. Section 496(n) requires the 
Secretary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of accrediting agencies 
seeking recognition, including an independent evaluation of the 
information provided by the agency. Section 487(a)(15) of the HEA 
requires, as part of the institution's Program Participation Agreement 
in title IV, HEA programs, that the institution acknowledge the 
authority of the Secretary, the institution's accrediting agency, and 
others to share information pertaining to the institution's eligibility 
to participate in title IV, HEA programs, and regarding any fraud and 
abuse on the part of the institution.
    Current Regulations: Section 602.15(b)(1) of the current 
regulations requires an accrediting agency to maintain complete and 
accurate records of its last two full accreditation or preaccreditation 
reviews of each institution or program it accredits and provides a list 
of the various documents that must be included in those records. 
Section 602.27(e) of the current regulations requires agencies to 
disclose to the Department the name of any accredited institution or 
program that the agency has reason to believe is failing to meet title 
IV, HEA program responsibilities or is engaged in fraud or abuse, along 
with the agency's reasons for concern. Section 602.27(f) of the current 
regulations provides for the Secretary to ask the agency for 
information that may bear upon an institution's compliance with title 
IV, HEA program responsibilities and stipulates that the Secretary may 
ask for this information in order to assist the Department in resolving 
problems with the institution's participation in the title IV, HEA 
programs.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.  
602.15(b)(1) would require the accrediting agency to retain its records 
of its last full accreditation or preaccreditation review of each 
institution or program it accredits. Proposed Sec.  602.15(b)(2) would 
require the agency to maintain records of all its decisions made 
throughout an institution's or program's affiliation with the agency 
regarding the accreditation and preaccreditation of the institution or 
program, which would include the accrediting agency's decisions about 
substantive changes that affect the title IV, HEA program eligibility.
    The Department proposes to restructure the regulations in Sec.  
602.27 to include a new paragraph (b) to address

[[Page 39504]]

the confidentiality of communications between the agency and the 
Department. Specifically, proposed Sec.  602.27(b) would address 
situations in which an agency has a policy relating to notification to 
an accredited institution or program of communications that occur 
between the agency and the Department pursuant to proposed Sec.  
602.27(a)(6) and (7) (i.e., current Sec.  602.27(e) and (f)). Under the 
proposed regulations, these policies would need to provide for a case-
by-case review by the agency of the contact with the Department and the 
circumstances surrounding it to assess whether that contact should 
remain confidential. The proposed regulation would further require that 
upon a specific request by the Department to keep the contact 
confidential, the agency must consider the contact confidential. 
Proposed Sec.  602.27(a)(6) would remove the language in current Sec.  
602.27(e) acknowledging that the Secretary may ask for information to 
assist in resolving problems with title IV, HEA program participation.
    Reasons: As reflected in section 496(m) of the HEA, the Department 
engages in recognition proceedings to ensure that accrediting agencies 
that serve as gatekeepers for Federal programs are reliable authorities 
as to the quality of postsecondary education provided by the 
institutions or programs they accredit. The Department has had some 
concern about accrediting agencies maintaining sufficient information 
relevant to an institution's accreditation, as is necessary for 
agencies to fulfill their gatekeeping roles. Additionally, there has 
been a significant increase over time in the number of substantive 
changes at institutions that affect an institution's title IV, HEA 
program eligibility.
    Agencies have not always been able to provide the Department with 
information related to substantive changes. While needing to ensure 
that required documentation is retained by agencies, the Department 
does not want to overly burden agencies by requiring them to retain 
multiple cycles of information, which can be voluminous. Therefore, the 
proposed regulations in Sec.  602.15(b)(1) would require that an agency 
retain all documentation of its last full accreditation or 
preaccreditation review of each institution or program. The proposed 
regulations in Sec.  602.15(b)(2) would require agencies to retain all 
decisions made throughout an institution's affiliation with the agency 
and significantly related correspondence for substantive changes as 
well as for decisions regarding the accreditation or preaccreditation 
of an institution or program. Appropriate documentation must be 
retained with all decisions.
    The non-Federal negotiators agreed with the proposed changes to 
Sec.  602.15(b)(1) to reduce the number of review cycles of information 
to be retained. None of the negotiators objected to the proposed 
requirement that agencies retain information about substantive changes. 
Several non-Federal negotiators expressed concern about the proposed 
changes related to confidentiality. Issues of confidentiality regarding 
contact between the Department and accrediting agencies have long been 
a concern to the Department.
    The Department respects the important role that collegiality and 
frank exchanges play in effective accrediting practice. However, the 
Department has found that agency policies providing for automatic 
disclosure to accredited institutions and programs of all departmental 
communications are at odds in some circumstances with both the 
gatekeeping role of recognized accreditors and the Department's 
fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that Federal programs are run 
efficiently and effectively and are protected against fraud and abuse. 
In trying to reach the proper balance, the Department has proposed 
changes to Sec.  602.27(b), including a requirement for agencies with 
policies regarding notification to an institution or program of contact 
with the Department to review each contact on a case-by-case basis to 
properly assess whether confidentiality should be maintained. In 
addition, if the Department specifically requests that a contact it has 
with an agency remain confidential, then the agency is required to 
consider that contact confidential. The Department believes these 
provisions strike the appropriate balance, and are necessary to ensure 
that the Federal fiscal interest and the interests of students and 
institutions are fully protected. The sentence in current Sec.  
602.27(e) referring to the Secretary's authority to request information 
from accrediting agencies to resolve problems with title IV, HEA 
program participation would be removed as extraneous.
    Non-Federal negotiators expressed concern about the Department's 
initial proposal in this area, which would have prohibited an agency 
from establishing a policy of providing notification to an institution 
regarding contact with the Department. The Department revised its 
proposed approach in response, to permit agencies to have policies 
within the limits described above, and the non-Federal negotiators did 
not object to the revised language.

Student Achievement (Sec.  602.16)

    Statute: Section 496(a)(5)(A) of the HEA provides that an 
accrediting agency's standard by which it assesses an institution's 
success with respect to student achievement in relation to the 
institution's mission may include different standards for different 
institutions or programs, as established by the institution including, 
as appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course 
completion, and job placement rates. The phrase ``which may include 
different standards for different institutions or programs, as 
established by the institution'' was added by the HEOA.
    The Rule of Construction in section 496(p) of the HEA, added by the 
HEOA, stipulates that an accrediting agency is not restricted from 
setting, with the involvement of its members, and applying, 
accreditation standards for or to institutions or programs that seek 
review by the agency. In addition, the Rule of Construction stipulates 
that an institution is not restricted from developing and using 
institutional standards to show its success with respect to student 
achievement, which achievement may be considered as part of any 
accreditation review.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations in Sec.  602.16(a)(1)(i) 
replicate the statutory language in section 496(a)(5)(A) of the HEA, 
except that they do not include the phrase that was added by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.  
602.16(a)(1)(i) would replicate the new statutory language in section 
496(a)(5)(A) of the HEA. The proposed regulations in Sec.  602.16(e) 
would replicate the Rule of Construction in section 496(p).
    Reasons: While section 496(g) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
prohibits the Secretary from establishing any criteria that specify, 
define, or prescribe the standards that accrediting agencies use to 
assess any institution's success with respect to student achievement, 
the Secretary is obligated to amend the current regulations that do not 
reflect the new language in the HEA regarding the kind of student 
achievement standards recognized agencies must have.
    The Department's initial proposed regulations did not include the 
Rule of Construction from the statute. Several non-Federal negotiators 
asked that the Rule of Construction be incorporated into the 
regulations. The Department included in the proposed regulations

[[Page 39505]]

the Rule of Construction from the statute. The non-Federal negotiators 
agreed with the Department that an accrediting agency would need to 
make a judgment about whether an institution developed and used 
reasonable standards to show its success with respect to student 
achievement.

Distance Education and Correspondence Education (Sec. Sec.  602.16; 
602.17; 602.18; 602.27)

    Statute: Section 496(a)(4)(B) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
specifies that if an agency has or seeks to include within its scope of 
recognition the evaluation of the quality of institutions or programs 
offering distance education or correspondence education, the agency 
must, in addition to meeting the other requirements, demonstrate that 
its standards effectively address the quality of an institution's 
distance education or correspondence education with respect to the 
standards specified in section 496(a)(5). However, the statute provides 
that the agency is not required to have separate standards, procedures, 
or policies for the evaluation of distance education or correspondence 
education in order to meet the requirements of section 496(a)(4)(B). 
Section 496(a)(4)(B) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, also provides 
that if an accrediting agency that accredits institutions is already 
recognized by the Secretary, it will not be required to obtain the 
approval of the Secretary to expand its scope of recognition to include 
distance education or correspondence education, provided that the 
agency notifies the Secretary in writing of the change in scope.
    Section 496(a)(4)(B) further specifies that an agency must require 
an institution that offers distance education or correspondence 
education to have processes through which the institution establishes 
that the student who registers in a distance education or 
correspondence education course or program is the same student who 
participates in and completes the program and receives the academic 
credit.
    Section 496(q) of the HEA specifies that the Secretary shall 
require a review, at the next available Advisory Committee meeting, of 
any recognized accrediting agency that has included distance education 
or correspondence education in its scope of recognition through written 
notice to the Secretary, if the enrollment of an institution the agency 
accredits that offers distance education or correspondence education 
has increased by 50 percent or more within any one institutional fiscal 
year.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations require an agency to 
submit to the Secretary any proposed change in its policies, 
procedures, or accreditation or preaccreditation standards that might 
alter its scope of recognition. Current regulations do not include any 
requirement for verifying the identity of students enrolled in distance 
education or correspondence education courses and programs.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to restructure Sec.  
602.16 and add a new paragraph (c). The new paragraph would provide 
that if an agency has or seeks to include within its scope of 
recognition the evaluation of the quality of institutions or programs 
that offer distance education or correspondence education, the agency's 
standards must effectively address the quality of its institutions' 
distance education or correspondence education in the specified areas. 
The agency would not be required to have separate standards, 
procedures, or policies for the evaluation of distance education or 
correspondence education.
    Section 602.17, which requires the application of accrediting 
standards in reaching an accrediting agency decision, would be amended 
by adding a new paragraph (g) to implement the new student verification 
requirements. The proposed regulations would provide that agencies 
require institutions that offer distance education or correspondence 
education to have processes in place through which the institution 
would establish that the student who registers in a distance education 
or correspondence education course or program is the same student who 
participates in and completes the course or program and receives the 
academic credit. The agency would meet this requirement if it requires 
institutions to verify the identity of a student who participates in 
class or coursework by using methods such as a secure login and pass 
code or proctored examinations, and new or other technologies and 
practices that are effective in verifying student identity. The agency 
would also be required to make clear, in writing, that institutions 
must use processes that protect student privacy and must notify 
students at the time of registration or enrollment of any projected 
additional student charges associated with the verification of student 
identity.
    Section 602.18 would be amended to reflect changes made by the HEOA 
to section 496(a)(4) regarding an institution's application and 
enforcement of standards that respect its stated mission, including 
religious mission.
    As noted in the discussion of record-keeping and confidentiality, 
Sec.  602.27 would be restructured. The proposed regulations would add 
a new paragraph (5) to redesignated paragraph (a) that would provide 
for notification to the Secretary that an agency is expanding its scope 
of recognition to include distance education or correspondence 
education as provided for in section 496(a)(4)(B)(i)(I) of the HEA, as 
amended by the HEOA. The proposed regulations would specify that the 
expansion of scope would be effective on the date the Department 
receives the notification.
    Reasons: The proposed changes to the regulations reflect changes to 
the HEA made by the HEOA. The proposed regulations would require an 
agency's standards to address distance education and correspondence 
education effectively if the agency evaluates institutions offering 
distance education or correspondence education.
    Some of the non-Federal negotiators asked whether an agency whose 
scope of recognition already includes distance education would be 
required to notify the Secretary if it wanted to expand its scope to 
include correspondence education, now that correspondence education is 
specified separately in the law. The Department's position is that, as 
the definition of distance education in the current regulations 
includes correspondence study, any previous grant of a scope of 
recognition that included distance education automatically encompassed 
correspondence education, and there is no need for further action on 
the part of agencies currently recognized for distance education by the 
Department. If the proposed regulations are finalized as drafted, the 
Department contemplates including on its Web site listing of recognized 
accrediting agencies a notation that agencies having a scope of 
recognition that included distance education as of the August 14, 2008, 
enactment of the HEOA are also recognized for correspondence education 
pending re-evaluation of each agency as it comes before the Department 
for renewal of recognition. Once the regulations become effective, 
agencies whose scope includes distance education that come up for 
renewal of their recognition would be expected to demonstrate how they 
evaluate both distance education and correspondence education in 
accordance with proposed Sec.  602.16(c). An agency that accredits 
institutions and does not already include distance education or 
correspondence education in its scope of recognition but that desires 
to do so would need to either submit a

[[Page 39506]]

notification of expansion of scope (for distance education, 
correspondence education, or both), or request an expansion of scope to 
include these in applying for renewal of recognition, and in either 
event, in subsequent reviews for renewal of recognition, demonstrate 
how it evaluates these modes of education in accordance with proposed 
Sec.  602.16(c). An agency that accredits only programs could not 
expand its scope by notification because section 496(q) of the HEA 
limits this option to institutional accreditors. Because of the 
limitation, programmatic accreditors would be required to apply for an 
expansion of scope to include distance education, correspondence 
education, or both. The Department proposes to include programmatic 
accreditors that accredit stand-alone institutions in the set of 
agencies that may expand their scope by notification.
    In addition to the changes the Department initially proposed for 
Sec.  602.27(a)(5) to reflect the substance of the new statutory 
provision for including distance education or correspondence education 
in an agency's scope of recognition upon written notice by a recognized 
agency to the Secretary, the non-Federal negotiators requested that the 
Department include the applicable statutory citation in the proposed 
regulation. The Department agreed. The Department also included a 
provision specifying the effective date of such a notification so it 
would be clear to both agencies and the Department when the change in 
scope was effective.
    Much of the discussion regarding distance education at the 
negotiated rulemaking sessions centered on the new requirement to 
verify student identity. Some of the non-Federal negotiators expressed 
concern about the cost of implementing the new provisions, saying they 
wanted to ensure that the requirements would be affordable. They were 
reluctant to include requirements that would be considered ``forward-
looking'' in that they would address new or emerging technologies for 
verifying student identity. The Department's initial position was that 
the concern about forward-looking requirements could be addressed by 
specifying that new identification technologies and practices would 
have to be adopted only as they become widely accepted, reasoning that 
a technology or practice would not become widely accepted and used 
unless it was affordable. Nevertheless, several non-Federal negotiators 
were concerned about including the ``widely accepted'' language and 
proposed revising the draft regulation to require instead use of ``new 
or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying 
student identity,'' in addition to secure logins and pass codes and 
proctored examinations. As one of the non-Federal negotiators 
explained, peer reviewers conducting on-site reviews will assess an 
institution's use of technology and verification practices in relation 
to those technologies and practices that are widely used and are 
affordable, and if an institution is using ineffective methods of 
identification verification, they will note that finding. The non-
Federal negotiators also wanted to make it explicit that the methods 
used to verify the identity of students would be determined by the 
institution. As the draft language provided that the methods chosen 
must be effective in verifying student identification, the Department 
accepted the changes proposed by the non-Federal negotiators.
    The Department originally proposed specifying that institutions 
should not use or rely on technologies that interfere with student 
privacy. Several non-Federal negotiators recommended retaining this 
concept, but rephrasing the language to present the concept more 
positively. Non-Federal negotiators also suggested including language 
about processes or methods, which would be broader than referring to 
technologies. For these reasons, the proposed requirement related to 
student privacy was restated to require that institutions make clear in 
writing that institutions must use processes that protect student 
privacy. To address the concern of several non-Federal negotiators that 
students be made aware in advance of any additional charges associated 
with administering dista