Proposed Rule2023-05725
Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship Program and Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 21, 2023
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations that govern the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) Fellowship Program. The proposed changes would revise language proficiency qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarify the Secretary's discretionary use of eligibility criteria.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16924-16932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 662 and 663
[Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0009]
RIN 1840-AD90
Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship
Program and Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations that govern
the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)
Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) Fellowship
Program. The proposed changes would revise language proficiency
qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarify the Secretary's
discretionary use of eligibility criteria.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. However, if you require an accommodation or
cannot otherwise submit your comments via <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, please
[[Page 16925]]
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by
email or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure
that the Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit
your comments only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at
the top of your comments.
The Department strongly encourages you to submit any comments or
attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in
Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), the Department strongly
encourages you to convert the PDF to ``print-to-PDF'' format, or to use
some other commonly used searchable text format. Please do not submit
the PDF in a scanned format. Using a print-to-PDF format allows the
Department to electronically search and copy certain portions of your
submissions to assist in the rulemaking process.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``FAQ.''
Note: The Department's policy is generally to make comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Therefore, commenters should include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available. Commenters
should not include in their comments any information that identifies
other individuals or that permits readers to identify other
individuals. The Department reserves the right to redact at any time
any information that identifies other individuals or that permits
readers to identify other individuals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Pamela J. Maimer, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 258-24, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6891. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c7d6dad2dbd699dad6dedad2c5f7d2d399d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2c3d3139303d72313d3531392e1c3938723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.
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: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to
submit comments regarding the proposed regulations. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we
urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (explained further
below) and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from the proposed regulations. Please let us know of any
further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
the Department's programs and activities. The Department also welcomes
comments on any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed in the
proposed regulations.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about the proposed regulations by accessing <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance
to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking
record for the proposed regulations. To schedule an appointment for
this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
The DDRA Fellowship Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.022A,
provides opportunities for doctoral students to engage in dissertation
research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies. The
program is designed to contribute to the development and improvement of
the study of modern foreign languages and area studies in the United
States, and to increase scholars' knowledge of the culture of the
people in the countries or regions of research. The program provides
fellowships to doctoral candidates who are planning a teaching career
in the United States upon completion of their programs and who possess
sufficient foreign language skills in the country or countries of
research to carry out the dissertation research project. See 34 CFR
part 662; 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
The FRA Fellowship Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.019A,
provides opportunities for faculty members teaching modern foreign
languages or area studies at U.S. institutions of higher education to
engage in research abroad in those languages or areas studied. The
program is designed to contribute to the faculty members' foreign
language skills and to increase knowledge of the culture of the people
in the countries or regions of research. See 34 CFR part 663; 22 U.S.C.
2452(b)(6).
The regulations for both programs were last revised in 1998.
Currently, under both the DDRA regulations (Sec. 662.21(c)(3)) and the
FRA regulations (Sec. 663.21(c)(3)), the Secretary awards points for
an applicant's language proficiency in the country or countries of
research. Under the current regulations, however, the Secretary does
not take into consideration the language proficiency of those who are
seeking to conduct research in their native languages through
Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3). As a consequence, native
speakers applying to the DDRA and FRA programs are not eligible to
receive qualitative points for language proficiency based on Sections
662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) if they propose to conduct research in a
host country using their native language.
We propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to provide
eligibility for points based on Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and
663.21(c)(3) for applicants conducting research projects in any
language in which they have proficiency, other than English, to receive
up to the full amount of points available for this criterion based on
their individual level of proficiency. While the Department had a
reasonable basis for the prior version of this criterion that was
grounded in the purposes of the DDRA and FRA programs, the Department's
updated consideration of these programs as they have evolved over time
has led to the conclusion that this change will better promote fairness
in the application review process for native speakers of languages
other than English.
The proposed revisions would be consistent with the statutory
framework for the DDRA and FRA programs. Allowing native speakers to
receive points based on Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) for
conducting research projects in any language in which they have
proficiency, other than English, would support the statutory goal of
``promoting modern foreign language training and area studies in United
States schools[.]'' 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
The proposed changes to these regulations would also bring the DDRA
and FRA programs into better alignment with other comparable foreign
language and international area studies grants, which do not contain an
exception or exclusion for native language skills other than English.
The Fulbright U.S. Student and U.S. Scholar Programs
[[Page 16926]]
managed by the Department of State, for example, require that an
applicant's language skills match the proposed host country's
requirements, and that the applicant demonstrate language proficiency
commensurate with the nature of the proposed project, without regard to
the applicant's native language.
We also propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to adopt a
new selection criterion within Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) that
will consider the steps taken by the applicant to improve proficiency
in the language of study and ensure adequate preparation for the
proposed research project. The Department believes this criterion will
support the DDRA program's goal of promoting modern foreign language
training ``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by
allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their
language in a domestic academic setting.
Finally, we propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to give
the Secretary flexibility under Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to
choose among the regulated selection criteria that will be considered
in each application cycle when assessing applicant qualifications. The
Department believes this change will increase flexibility when
implementing these programs to account for changing Departmental
priorities for international and foreign language education, while
still allowing the Department to select among the most qualified
applicants for funding.
Summary of Proposed Regulations
The proposed changes would--
<bullet> Amend Sec. 662.21(c) of the DDRA regulations to allow
awarding of full points under criterion (c)(3) to applicants conducting
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other
than English. The proposed change will better promote fairness in the
application review process for native speakers of languages other than
English.
The proposed regulations would also more fully account for
proficiency by considering the steps an applicant has taken to improve
their language proficiency in support of the proposed research project.
The Department believes this criterion will support the DDRA program's
goal of promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and
universities'' by allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken
to improve their language proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
Finally, the proposed regulations would give the Secretary
discretion to determine which factors will be considered in reviewing
applicant qualifications. The proposed change would increase
flexibility to implement the program within statutory requirements and
ensure each year's program implementation conforms with Departmental
priorities for international and foreign language education set under
Sec. 662.21(d). This proposed change would serve to bring DDRA into
alignment with other Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to
select among the regulated selection criteria when determining which
criteria will be emphasized in a particular competition year to account
for changing Departmental priorities while still allowing the
Department to select among the most qualifies applicants. As proposed,
the Secretary would be able to eliminate or assign no value to a
selection criterion in a particular competition year without undergoing
rulemaking if it was determined that the particular criterion would not
further that year's program priorities.
<bullet> Amend the FRA regulation at Sec. 663.21(c) to allow
awarding of full points for this criterion to applicants conducting
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other
than English. The proposed change will better promote fairness in the
application review process for native speakers of languages other than
English. The proposed regulations would also take into consideration
the steps an applicant has taken to improve their language proficiency
in support of the proposed research project.
Finally, the proposed regulations would give the Secretary
discretion to determine the value given each regulatory factor when
reviewing applicant qualifications. The proposed change would increase
flexibility to implement the program within each year's Departmental
priorities for international and foreign language education set under
Sec. 663.21(d). This change would bring FRA into alignment with other
Departmental programs (for example, the Department's general selection
criteria under 34 CFR 75.210) that allow the Secretary to select among
the regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will
be emphasized in a particular competition year. This proposed change
would allow the Secretary to eliminate assign no value to a selection
criterion for a particular competition year without undergoing
rulemaking if it was determined that the particular criterion would not
further program priorities announced under existing Sec. 663.21(d).
DDRA--Section 662.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application for a fellowship?
Statute: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6) authorizes the President to provide
for the promotion of modern foreign language training in U.S. schools,
colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign
countries by teachers and prospective teachers to improve their
language skills and their knowledge of the culture of the people of
those countries.
Current Regulation: Section 662.21(c)(3) does not award language
proficiency points for DDRA applicants conducting research in English
or in the applicant's native language. Section 662.21(c) does not
currently provide for consideration of the steps an applicant has taken
to improve their language proficiency in support of the proposed
research project.
Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend Sec. 662.21(c)(3) to
allow awarding full points for this criterion to applicants conducting
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other
than English. Additionally, we propose to add as new paragraph (c)(4):
a selection criterion that would take into consideration the steps an
applicant has taken to improve language proficiency in support of the
proposed research project. Finally, we propose revising the
introductory language of Sec. 662.21(c) to allow consideration of
``one or more'' of the listed criteria. This proposed revision would
provide the Secretary discretion when reviewing the qualifications of
applicants to align regulated selection criteria with Departmental
priorities for a particular competition year.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would bring DDRA into line with
other comparable foreign language and international area studies grant
programs, which generally do not contain an exception or exclusion for
applicants who pursue a course of study in their native language.
Additionally, proposed changes to the regulation are designed to
improve equitable access for applicants demonstrating doctoral level
proficiency in the language of the country in which they seek to
conduct research.
The Department has determined that the current regulation
overemphasizes the method of language acquisition over language
proficiency. The current regulations also have the consequence of
making individuals whose native language matches the host country of
research ineligible for language proficiency points under Sec.
662.21(c)(3) As the ultimate goal of these programs
[[Page 16927]]
is ``promoting modern foreign language training and area training[,]''
the Department has determined that the DDRA program is better served by
selecting linguistically proficient candidates for doctoral level
research, regardless of their method of acquisition of language
proficiency.
The proposed addition to Sec. 662.21(c) of a new selection
criterion would also take into consideration the steps an applicant has
taken to improve their language proficiency in support of the proposed
research project to more fully account for proficiency obtained through
an applicant's academic efforts and ensure adequate preparation for the
proposed research project. The Department believes this proposed new
criterion will support the DDRA program's goal of promoting training
``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by allowing
the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their language
proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
Finally, the proposal providing the Secretary discretion to choose
among the regulated selection criteria that will be considered in each
application cycle when reviewing applicant qualifications is expected
to increase flexibility when implementing the program to account for
changing Departmental priorities for international and foreign language
education. This proposal is generally consistent with the Secretary's
authority for all direct grant programs under 34 CFR 75.201 where ``in
the application package or a notice published in the Federal Register,
the Secretary informs applicants of [. . .] the selection criteria
chosen[.]'' This change would bring DDRA into alignment with other
Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to select among the
regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will be
used in a particular competition year.
FRA--Section 663.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for a fellowship?
Statute: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6) authorizes the President to provide
for the promotion of modern foreign language training in U.S. schools,
colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign
countries by teachers and prospective teachers to improve their
language skills and their knowledge of the culture of the people of
those countries.
Current Regulation: Section 663.21(c)(3) does not award language
proficiency points for applicants conducting research in English or in
the applicant's native language. Section 663.21(c) does not provide for
consideration of the steps an applicant has taken to improve their
language proficiency in support of the proposed research project.
Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend Sec. 663.21(c)(3) to
allow awarding full points for this criterion to applicants conducting
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other
than English. We also propose to add to Sec. 663.21(c) a new selection
criterion that would take into consideration the steps an applicant
takes to develop improved language proficiency in support of the
proposed research project. Finally, we propose revising the
introductory language of Sec. 663.21(c) to allow consideration of
``one or more'' of the listed criteria, thereby giving the Secretary
discretion to determine what factors will be considered in reviewing
the qualifications of applicants based on that year's priorities.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would bring FRA into line with
other comparable foreign language and international area studies grant
programs, which generally do not contain an exception or exclusion for
native language skills other than English. Additionally, proposed
changes to Sec. 663.21(c) should better improve equitable access for
applicants demonstrating advanced level proficiency in the language of
the country in which they seek to conduct research.
The Department overemphasizes the method of language acquisition
over language proficiency. The current regulations also have the
consequence of making individuals whose native language matches the
host country of research ineligible for language proficiency points
under Sec. 663.21. As the ultimate goal of these programs is
``promoting modern foreign language training and area training[,]'' the
Department has determined that the FRA program is better served by
selecting among the most linguistically proficient candidates for
faculty research, regardless of their method of acquisition of language
proficiency.
The proposed addition to Sec. 663.21(c) of a new selection
criterion would consider the steps taken by the applicant to improve
proficiency in the language of study and ensure adequate preparation
for the proposed research project. The Department believes this
criterion will support the FRA program's goal of promoting training
``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by allowing
the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their language
proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
Finally, we propose providing the Secretary discretion to choose
among the regulated selection factors considered when reviewing the
qualifications of applicants. This proposal is expected to increase
flexibility in implementing the program within the parameters of
Departmental program priorities for international and foreign language
education set under Sec. 663.21(d). This proposal is generally
consistent with the Secretary's authority for all direct grant programs
under 34 CFR 75.201 where ``in the application package or a notice
published in the Federal Register, the Secretary informs applicants of
[. . .] the selection criteria chosen[.]'' This change would bring FRA
into alignment with other Departmental programs that allow the
Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when
determining which criteria will be used in a particular competition
year.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
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 a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule),
(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 novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive Order.
This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 16928]]
We have also reviewed the proposed 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 taking into
account--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.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the proposed regulations only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify any associated costs. Based
on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that the proposed
regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated
with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The potential costs to applicants, grant recipients, and the
Department associated with the proposed regulatory change would be
minimal, while there would be greater potential benefits to applicants,
grant recipients, and the Department.
We anticipate a minimal increase of 10-15 DDRA and FRA program
applications as a result of eliminating the native language proficiency
exclusion and foresee minimal impact to the Department's time and cost
for reviewing these additional applications.
Over the last five years, the amount of funding for the DDRA
program has ranged from approximately $3.5 to 5 million, with an
average of 200 grant applications received per year, and an average of
fifty percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. The
number of applications and awards has remained relatively steady across
the last five years. The Department expects an increase of 10-15
applications per year based on the number of applicants that have
applied to study a geographic area that shares their native language
skills in recent years.
An increase in the number of applicants or awards granted could
result in minimal additional costs to Department in securing readers to
review applications. The Department pays readers $1,200 to review
applications and the number of applications per reader ranges from 15
to a maximum of 22 applications. An increase in 10-15 applications
could increase cost by an additional $1,200 to secure an additional
reader. However, the number of applications for the DDRA program has
declined over the last several years from a height of almost 250 to a
low of just over 150 in 2022. As a result, an increase in immediate
applications would not result in any overall comparative additional
costs, as a nominal increase in applications would restore DDRA to the
average amount of applications received in prior years. We anticipate
no additional costs to grant recipients, as we would continue to pay
for grant activities with program funds.
Last fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Department conducted an FRA
competition and made fellowship awards to 22 recipients totaling
$1,265,000. The FY 2022 competition was the first competition in over a
decade for the FRA program. The previous Fulbright-Hays appropriation
had decreased from $15.6 million in FY 2010 to $7.5 million in FY 2011,
and the nearly fifty percent decrease in available funds made it
impossible to conduct competitions and make awards under all four
Fulbright-Hays programs. As a result, the FRA program was suspended
from 2011 to 2021. The funding level for the Fulbright-Hays programs
had remained relatively level at $7.1 million for the past several
years. In FY 2022, we received a modest increase to $8.1 million, which
enabled us to re-activate the FRA program. However, we will not conduct
the FRA competition in FY 2023. We do anticipate conducting another FRA
competition in FY 2024, contingent upon available funds. Given that the
FRA competition has only been conducted once in the last decade, trends
in those program applications cannot be measured.
The benefits of amending these regulations include (1) better
aligning DDRA and FRA applicant qualifications with other comparable
foreign language and international area student grant programs to focus
on language proficiency and (2) increasing equitable access to research
abroad for those demonstrating language proficiency in the language of
the countries in which their doctoral-level or faculty research study
will occur, regardless of the applicant's native language. In addition,
we expect that this flexibility may result in more applications from
applicants speaking a wider variety of native language, as well as more
applications recommended for funding.
The proposed regulations also would more fully account for
proficiency by adding a new selection criterion that considers an
applicant's academic record and the steps taken by the applicant to
improve proficiency in the language of study and ensure adequate
preparation for the proposed research project. The Department believes
this criterion will support the DDRA and FRA programmatic goal of
promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and
universities'' by allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken
to improve their language proficiency in an academic setting. We do not
anticipate any changes in the number of applications received as a
result of this change, nor do we anticipate any costs to grant
recipients. As a result, we do not anticipate any burden cost with the
addition of this particular criterion.
Finally, providing the Secretary discretion to determine the
factors that will be considered when reviewing the qualifications of
applicants would increase flexibility to implement the
[[Page 16929]]
program within statutory requirements while adapting to changing
Departmental priorities for international and foreign language
education. This change would bring DDRA and FRA into alignment with
other Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to select among
the regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will
be emphasized in a particular competition year. We do not anticipate
any cost to the government for this change, beyond nominal costs
associated with updating the application package. We do not anticipate
any changes in the number of applications received as a result of this
change, nor do we anticipate any costs to grant recipients. As a
result, we do not anticipate any burden cost with the addition of this
flexibility regarding the selection criteria.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Alternatives Considered
In addition to allowing native speakers to receive points based on
sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3), we considered allowing English
as the language for the country of research, which is currently
restricted, but believe that maintaining the requirement that
applicants as part of the application package demonstrate proficiency
in a language ``other than English'' more appropriately meets the
statutory goal of ``promoting modern foreign language training and area
studies in United States schools[.]'' 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6). We also
considered continuing to solely provide points for language proficiency
without consideration of additional steps taken to improve proficiency.
However, the inclusion of a criterion that considers steps taken to
improve proficiency better meets the statutory goal of promoting
training ``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by
allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their
language proficiency in a domestic academic setting. We believe that
replacing the exclusion for native language skills other than English
with a focus on both an applicant's current foreign language skills and
efforts to master the language of study will be more effective in
increasing the capabilities and diversity of applicants and
participants, while remaining consistent with the statutory goals of
these programs.
Clarity of the Regulation
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments
on how to make the proposed regulation easier to understand, including
answers to questions such as the following:
(a) Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly stated?
(b) Does the proposed regulation contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with its clarity?
(c) Does the format of the proposed regulation (use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(d) Would the proposed regulation be easier to understand if we
divided it into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded
by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec.
106.9 Dissemination of policy.)
(e) Could the description of the proposed regulation in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulation easier to understand? If so, how?
(f) What else could we do to make the proposed regulation easier to
understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that the proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that would be affected by the proposed
regulations are institutions of higher education (IHEs) that would
submit applications to the Department under this program. The proposed
regulations would not have a significant economic impact on the small
entities affected because they would not impose excessive regulatory
burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The proposed
regulations would impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper
expenditure of program funds. We invite the public to comment on our
certification that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing
status, governing body, and population. Most entities to which the
Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply are
postsecondary institutions; however, many of these institutions do not
report such data to the Department. As a result, the Department defines
``small entities'' by reference to enrollment,\1\ to allow meaningful
comparison of regulatory impact across all types of higher education
institutions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two-year postsecondary educational institutions with
enrollment of less than 500 full-time equivalent (FTE) and four-year
postsecondary educational institutions with enrollment of less than
1,000 FTE.
\2\ In some prior regulations, the Department categorized small
businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined ``non-
profit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000.
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private
nonprofit organization as small and no public institutions as small.
Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were
considered small if they were independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) finance data for proprietary institutions, 50
percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less proprietary
institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an enrollment-
based definition applies the same metric to all types of
institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.
[[Page 16930]]
Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Type Small Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................ Public.................. 328 1182 27.75
2-year................................ Private................. 182 199 91.46
2-year................................ Proprietary............. 1777 1952 91.03
4-year................................ Public.................. 56 747 7.50
4-year................................ Private................. 789 1602 49.25
4-year................................ Proprietary............. 249 331 75.23
Total............................. ........................ 3381 6013 56.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018-19 data reported to the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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 ensure 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.
Sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) of the proposed regulations
contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA the
Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for its
review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
In the final regulations, we will display the control number
assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in
this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.
The information collection that would be impacted by these proposed
regulatory changes is the Application for the DDRA and FRA Programs
(1840-0005). Under the DDRA and FRA programs, individual scholars apply
through eligible institutions for an institutional grant to support the
research fellowship. These institutions administer the program, in
cooperation with the Department, pursuant to sections 102(b)(6) and
104(e)(1) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961,
34 CFR parts 662 and 663, the Policy Statements of the J. William
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), and the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
The data requested are used by the Department, U.S. foreign
language and area studies specialists, the Department of State, U.S.
Embassies, Fulbright Commissions, host country officials and scholars,
and the FSB in determining the academic qualifications and suitability
of the individual applicant, potential political sensitivity and
feasibility of the project in the host country, research climate, and
adequacy of the proposed budget.
Grants under these programs are awarded annually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total annual
Number of Average burden Total burden respondent costs (hourly
Program respondents hours per hours average hourly wage x total
response wage burden hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDRA Student Respondent......... 325 25 8,125 $0 $0
DDRA Institution Project 50 25 1,250 47.20 59,000
Director.......................
FRA Faculty Respondent.......... 70 25 1,750 36.33 63,578
FRA Institution Project Director 50 15 750 47.20 35,400
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Totals........... 495 .............. 11,875 .............. 157,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hour burden of individual respondents is estimated at an
average of 25 hours for each student. The cost burden for student
applicants is zero. We estimate that the changes to the regulations may
result in a small increase in the number of DDRA student respondents
from 310 to 325. When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an
increase in DDRA student burden hours from 7750 to 8125.
The hour burden of the 50 institutional project directors is
estimated at 25 hours for each DDRA application. The cost burden for
institutional DDRA applicants is $59,000. These estimates are based on
feedback from DDRA respondents during the last three years.
The hour burden of individual respondents is estimated at an
average of 25 hours for each faculty member. The cost burden for
faculty applicants is $63,578. The hour burden of the 50 institutional
project directors is estimated at 15 hours for each FRA application.
The cost burden for institutional FRA applicants is $35,000. These
estimates are based on feedback from FRA respondents during the last
three years.
These estimates incorporate the completion of the following tasks:
1. Register in the G5 e-Application system (project director)
2. Complete official forms (student/faculty and project director)
3. Develop the application narrative and budget (student/faculty)
4. Screen individual completed applications (project director)
5. Transmit completed individual applications to US/ED in a single
submission via G5 (project director)
[[Page 16931]]
The difference between the hour burdens for the DDRA and FRA
project directors is due to the fact that the FRA program is smaller
and has fewer applicants. DDRA project directors are generally
processing applications for multiple students, whereas FRA project
directors are generally processing an application for one faculty
member.
The data in the table is an estimate of the time it takes for both
institutional project directors and individual student and faculty
respondents to complete these tasks.
The DDRA and FRA application (1840-0005) would be affected by the
regulatory changes in the following ways:
<bullet> We would change the application package to eliminate the
native language proficiency exclusion.
<bullet> We would include additional language in the DDRA and FRA
selection criteria (under Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3))
which would require minimal changes on the technical review forms.
We estimate that the changes to the regulations may result in a
small increase in the number of DDRA student respondents from 310 to
325. When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an increase in DDRA
student burden hours from 7750 to 8125. We estimate that costs would
increase for individuals or institutions as a result of these minor
changes. The annual burden hours for institutions remains at 2000, and
the annual burden hours for individuals increases to 9875, for a total
of 11875 annual burden hours under OMB Control Number 1840-0005. The
annual cost burden remains at $157,978.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory section Information collection OMB Control No. and estimated burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 34 These proposed regulatory provisions 1840-0005. The number of respondents
CFR Sec. 663.21(c)(3). would require changing the and the number of annual burden
application package to eliminate the hours would increase to 495 and
native language proficiency 11,875 respectively, and the annual
exclusion. burden costs would remain the same
at $157,978.
34 CFR Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 34 These proposed regulatory provisions 1840-0005. The number of respondents
CFR Sec. 663.21(c)(3). would require the inclusion of and the number of annual burden
additional language in the DDRA and hours would increase to 495 and
FRA selection criteria to take into 11,875 respectively, and the annual
consideration steps an applicant has burden costs would remain the same
taken to improve their language at $157,978.
proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have prepared Information Collection Requests for these
information collection requirements. If you wish to review and comment
on the Information Collection Requests, please follow the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section of this notification. Note: The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the Department review all
comments posted at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
[cir] Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the
proper performance of our functions, including whether the information
will have practical use;
[cir] Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
[cir] Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
[cir] Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives your comments by April 20, 2023. This
does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed
regulations. If your comments relate to the Information Collection
Requests for these proposed regulations, please specify the Docket ID
number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on the top of
your comments.
Intergovernmental Review
The proposed regulations are not subject to Executive Order 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests
comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission
of information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure 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 proposed regulations do not have federalism
implications.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person 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 <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. 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 PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available at no cost to the user at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 662
Colleges and universities, Education, Educational research,
Educational study programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and
fellowships.
34 CFR Part 663
Colleges and universities, Education, Educational research,
Educational study
[[Page 16932]]
programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships,
Teachers.
Nasser H. Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 662 and 663 of title 34 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
34 CFR PART 662--FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH
ABROAD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 662 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C.
2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 662.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 662.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for a fellowship?
* * * * *
(c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
(3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
(4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to
the proposed research project;
(5) The applicant's ability to conduct research in a foreign
cultural context, as evidenced by the applicant's references or
previous overseas experience, or both.
* * * * *
34 CFR PART 663--FULBRIGHT-HAYS FACULTY RESEARCH ABROAD FELLOWSHIP
PROGRAM
0
3. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C.
2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.
0
4. Amend Sec. 663.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 663.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for a fellowship?
* * * * *
(c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
(3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
(4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to
the proposed research project;
(5) The applicant's ability to conduct research in a foreign
cultural context, as evidenced by the applicant's previous overseas
experience, or documentation provided by the sponsoring institution, or
both.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-05725 Filed 3-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 21, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.