DOE recommends ACCJC to be renewed. 12 months to address issues.

The Department of Education will be sending a recommendation to Secretary Duncan for renewal. In regards to some of the complaints submitted by the CFT and others, they stated:

The Department’s analysis of third party comments received about the ACCJC concluded "[m]ost of the commenters did not tie their areas of alleged noncompliance to specific sections of the…Criteria" and were "outside the scope of the [Department's] review." It further noted that most of the 100 submissions were related and in support of City College of San Francisco (CCSF), the subject of a recent adverse action by the ACCJC. This provides explanation for the unusual number of written comments received and the requests for oral comment at the NACIQI meeting.¶ Most of the letters had recurring themes. The staff report evaluated and found to be inaccurate the claims of ACCJC’s interference with the CCSF mission. The analysis found no evidence of the claimed inconsistency in application of standards, of inappropriate political involvement, or of any conflict of interest arising out of ACCJC’s Lumina Foundation grant.So, those complaints were thrown out. 

It appears the situation with CCSF is on the radar, but the DOE doesn't believe there is a need for them to render any decision.  It also appears that the DOE may sanction the ACCJC for not being hard enough.  This may imply that they perceive the leadership of the ACCJC to be soft on institutions versus too hard.   The recommendation page implies that they will be asked to close more institutions if out of compliance.  They stated that:

-- The agency must demonstrate that it consistently enforces the time period to return to compliance with the agency's standards. [§602.20(a)]
-- The agency must demonstrate that it takes immediate adverse action if an institution does not bring itself into compliance within the specified period. [§602.20(b)]
-- The agency must provide documentation that it must complete the standards revision process within a reasonable period of time. [§602.21(c)]
-- The agency must provide documentation to demonstrate that it provides written specification of any deficiencies identified at the institution examined. [§602.25(a-e)]
-- The agency must demonstrate that it provides written notice of negative decisions to the Secretary and the other entities required by this section at the same time it notifies the institution of the decision. [§602.26(b)]

The time period for compliance seems to imply Student Learning Outcome timelines.  As stated before, news of the demise of the ACCJC were greatly exaggerated.  Although they have to deal with some deficiencies, the US Department of Educations ASL (Accreditation and State Liason) stated the following:

Staff Recommendation: Continue the agency's recognition and require the agency to come into compliance within 12 months, and submit a compliance report that demonstrates the agency's compliance with all identified issues. Extend the agency's time for coming into compliance for the previous findings of noncompliance in Sections 602.15(a)(3), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) within the August 13, 2013, CFT Complaint Decision letter, which expires in August 2014. To provide sufficient time for the agency to demonstrate compliance in light of the close timing between the complaint and petition review, Department staff finds good cause to extend the agency’s period for coming into compliance until 12 months of the date of the decision letter on recognition.

This is a hand slap.  It also implies that the CCSF situation did follow protocols, and they were out of compliance.  If you read into the report, the ACCJC is getting slammed for giving colleges more time to meet the SLO component.   The report addresses some of the complaints, but it appears to be about the ACCJC not being hard enough versus being too hard.