§96.27. Substantive criteria for evaluating applicants for accreditation or approval. — Inbound Citations

(d) Sections 96.24, 96.25, and 96.26, which relate to evaluation procedures and to requests for and use of information, and § 96.27, which relates to the substantive criteria for evaluating applicants for accreditation or approval, other than § 96.27(e), will govern determinations about whether to renew accreditation or approval. In lieu of § 96.27(e), if the agency or person has been suspended by an accrediting entity or the Secretary during its most current accreditation or approval cycle, the accrediting entity may take the reasons underlying the suspension into account when determining whether to renew accreditation or approval and may refuse to renew accreditation or approval based on the prior suspension.

(2) The accrediting entity may conduct whatever investigative activity (including site visits) it considers necessary to determine whether any relevant accredited agency or approved person may maintain accreditation or approval as provided in § 96.27. The provisions of §§ 96.25 and 96.26 govern requests for and use of information. The accrediting entity must give priority to complaints submitted pursuant to § 96.69(d);

The accrediting entity must take adverse action when it determines that an accredited agency or approved person may not maintain accreditation or approval as provided in § 96.27. The accrediting entity is authorized to take any of the following actions against an accredited agency or approved person whose compliance the entity oversees. Each of these actions by an accrediting entity is considered an adverse action for purposes of the IAA, the UAA, and the regulations in this part:

(a) The accrediting entity must monitor agencies it has accredited and persons it has approved at least annually to ensure that they are in substantial compliance with the standards in subpart F of this part, as determined using a method approved by the Secretary in accordance with § 96.27(d). The accrediting entity must investigate complaints about accredited agencies and approved persons, as provided in subpart J of this part.

(d) Sections 96.24, 96.25, and 96.26, which relate to evaluation procedures and to requests for and use of information, and § 96.27, which relates to the substantive criteria for evaluating applicants for accreditation or approval, other than § 96.27(e), will govern determinations about whether to renew accreditation or approval. In lieu of § 96.27(e), if the agency or person has been suspended by an accrediting entity or the Secretary during its most current accreditation or approval cycle, the accrediting entity may take the reasons underlying the suspension into account when determining whether to renew accreditation or approval and may refuse to renew accreditation or approval based on the prior suspension.