Rule2023-26991
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
December 8, 2023
Effective
January 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Education (Department or we) issues final regulations governing the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) Fellowship Program. This rule revises language proficiency qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarifies the Secretary's discretionary use of eligibility criteria.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85502-85508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26991]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 662 and 663
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: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department or we) issues
final regulations governing the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation
Research Abroad (DDRA) Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research
Abroad (FRA) Fellowship Program. This rule revises language proficiency
qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarifies the
Secretary's discretionary use of eligibility criteria.
DATES: These regulations are effective January 8, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela J. Maimer, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6891. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691908040c050847040800040c1b290c0d470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="681809050d040946050901050d1a280d0c460f071e">[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:
Background
The DDRA Fellowship Program 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.
The FRA Fellowship Program provides opportunities for faculty
members teaching modern foreign languages or area studies at U.S.
institutions of higher education (IHEs) 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.
On March 21, 2023, the Secretary published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for these parts in the Federal Register.\1\ These
final regulations contain changes from the NPRM, which we explain in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR 16924.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, the
Department received five comments on the proposed regulations. We
address those comments in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
below.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
We group issues according to subject, with appropriate sections of
the regulations referenced in parentheses, where applicable. We discuss
other substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which
they pertain. Generally, we do not address minor, non-substantive
changes (such as renumbering paragraphs, adding a word, or
typographical errors). Additionally, we do not address recommended
changes that the statute does not authorize the Secretary to make or
comments pertaining to operational processes. We generally do not
address comments pertaining to issues that were not within the scope of
the NPRM.
An analysis of the public comments received and the changes to the
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
General Support
Comments: Two commenters supported the proposed regulations.
Discussion: We thank the commenters for their support. We believe
these changes maintain the statutory goals and the integrity of the
programs.
Changes: None.
General Opposition
Comments: One commenter objected to the existence of both the DDRA
and the FRA programs.
Discussion: These programs are authorized by statute.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Secretarial Discretion (Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c))
Comments: One commenter asked the Department to explain whether the
proposed rule is intended to merely clarify the Secretary's existing
discretion to vary selection criteria point values assigned to DDRA or
FRA, which was granted in a 2005 rulemaking, or whether the proposed
rule would grant new discretion to the Secretary. If the latter, the
commenter believed that the Department should explain any additional
discretion and give the public an opportunity to comment on the
proposed expansion.
The commenter further opined that, as the Fulbright-Hays Act and
the Department's eligibility regulations require the Secretary to
meaningfully consider foreign language skills, the Department should
finalize Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) without the proposed ``one
or more'' phrase in the introductory text or otherwise clarify that the
Secretary may not ignore foreign language skills when awarding
[[Page 85503]]
DDRA and FRA Fellowships. The commenter objected to the proposed rule
to the extent that it would grant discretion to ignore foreign language
skills in the DDRA and FRA competitions.
Lastly, this commenter stated that, if finalized as proposed, the
revisions to Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3), 662.21(c)(4), 663.21(c)(3), and
663.21(c)(4) would address the concerns identified in a recent lawsuit
filed on behalf of DDRA applicants \3\ who challenged the weight given
to their respective native languages in the selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Lujan v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., No. 3:22-CV-00159-DCG, F.
Supp. 3d__, 2023 WL 2638280 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Department appreciates this commenter's concerns
and wishes to clarify that the additional discretion proposed under
Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow the Secretary to consider
``one or more'' of the listed applicant qualification criteria, while
expanding the Secretary's discretion under these particular programs,
is an appropriate exercise of the Secretary's general authority under
34 CFR 75.201 to identify and notify applicants of grant competition
selection criteria (an authority which is routinely used, for example,
across Departmental programs utilizing the general selection criteria
under 34 CFR 75.210) and is consistent with the Fulbright-Hays Act.\4\
The Department would only use this flexibility consistent with the
programs' statutory requirement to ``promot[e] modern foreign language
training and area studies in United States schools[.]'' \5\ The
Department believes that it is able to discharge this requirement and
the purpose of these grants for ``improving [an applicant's] skill in
languages'' within the framework of several of the criteria looking at
the Qualification of an Applicant, and that this duty does not rest
solely on any single criteria under that section. The flexibility to
select ``one or more'' of the applicant qualification criteria under
Sec. Sec. 662.21(c) and 663.21(c) will enhance the Department's
ability to structure its grant competitions to select the most
qualified applicants for funding, because it will allow the Department
to focus from year-to-year on those selection criteria that have
yielded applications from the most qualified candidates. It also will
allow the Department to review the effect of omitting a particular
selection criterion in a given year on the quality of applicants,
without having to go through additional rulemaking to obtain this
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 34 CFR 75.201 (``[i]n the application package or a
notice published in the Federal Register, the Secretary informs
applicants of . . . [t]he selection criteria chosen[.]'').
\5\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Severability (Sec. Sec. 662.8 and 663.8)
Comments: None.
Discussion: Current regulations in 34 CFR 662 and 663 do not
address severability. The Department seeks to clarify its intent that,
with regard to severability, each of the regulations in 34 CFR parts
662 and 663 and its subparts serves one or more important, related, but
distinct, purposes. To best serve these purposes, we included this
administrative provision in the regulations to make clear that the
regulations are designed to operate independently of each other and to
convey the Department's intent that the potential invalidity of one
provision or any of its subparts should not affect the remainder of the
provisions.
Changes: We have added new severability provisions in Sec. Sec.
662.8 and 663.8.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Secretary must determine
whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as
amended by E.O. 14094, 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 $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by E.O. 14094).
We have also reviewed these regulations under E.O. 13563, which
supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. To
the extent permitted by law, E.O. 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon 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 providing
information that enables the public to make choices.
E.O. 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible.'' OMB's OIRA has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
The Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and we are
issuing these final requirements only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated
elsewhere in this document, the Department believes that the final
requirements are consistent with the principles in E.O. 13563.
[[Page 85504]]
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with state, local, territorial, or Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, and net budget
impacts.
Elsewhere, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Need for Regulatory Action
The Department amends the DDRA and FRA program regulations to
promote fairness in the application review process for native speakers
of languages other than English. These revisions are also consistent
with the statutory framework for the DDRA and FRA programs and are
necessary to support the statutory goal of ``promoting modern foreign
language training and area studies in United States schools[.]'' \6\
Additionally, revising the introductory language of Sec. Sec.
662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to allow consideration of ``one or more'' of
the listed criteria will enable the Department to administer these
competitive grant programs in a manner that prioritizes the most
qualified applicants for funding. Finally, the addition of severability
clauses to the regulations for these programs will enable the
Department to administer these programs more effectively if a component
of the regulations is invalidated by a court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
The Department believes this regulatory action will not impose
significant new cost-bearing requirements on IHEs or other entities. We
also believe that the benefits of implementing this regulatory action
outweigh any associated costs.
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 on the Department's time and cost
for reviewing these additional applications.
Over the last 5 years, the amount of annual funding for the DDRA
program has ranged from approximately $3.4 to $5.5 million, with an
average of 200 grant applications received per year, and an average of
50 percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. With the
changes to the regulation, 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 additional costs to the Department in securing readers to
review applications, but if additional costs arise, they will be
minimal. The Department pays readers $1,200 to review applications, and
the number of applications per reader ranges from 15 to a maximum of
22. An increase in 10-15 applications could increase costs by an
additional $1,200 to secure an additional reader. However, the number
of DDRA applications has declined over the last several years from a
high of almost 250 to a low of just more than 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
will restore DDRA to the average amount of applications received in
prior years. We anticipate no additional costs to grant recipients, as
we will continue to pay for grant activities with program funds. We
also note that program participation is voluntary.
In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Department conducted an FRA
competition and awarded 22 recipients a total of approximately $1.3
million. The FY 2022 competition was the first FRA competition in more
than 10 years. The Fulbright-Hays appropriation decreased from $15.6
million in FY 2010 to $7.5 million in FY 2011; the nearly 50 percent
decrease in available funding hindered our ability to conduct
competitions and make awards under all four Fulbright-Hays programs.
The result was a suspension of the FRA program from 2011 to 2021.
Between 2011 and 2021, the funding level for the Fulbright-Hays
programs averaged $7.4 million. In FY 2022, the amount increased to
$9.8 million, which enabled us to re-activate the FRA program. Although
we will not conduct the FRA competition in FY 2023, we do anticipate
conducting another FRA competition in FY 2024, contingent upon funding
availability. Given that we held only one FRA competition in the last
10 years, we cannot discuss potential trends in those program
applications or potential corresponding costs.
The benefits of these final regulations include better aligning
DDRA and FRA applicant qualifications with other comparable grant
programs to focus on overall language proficiency and 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. This will apply regardless
of the applicant's native language. Additionally, we expect that the
regulations will lead to an increase in the number of applications
overall, which will make the program more competitive and enable the
Department to fund even higher quality applications. The increase in
applications specifically from individuals with native languages other
than English will yield additional applications from individuals
speaking a wider variety of native languages, as well as more
applications recommended for funding from these individuals. These
regulations will also more fully account for proficiency by adding a
new selection criterion that considers an applicant's academic record.
Under this criterion, we will consider any steps the applicant has
taken to improve proficiency in the language of study and ensure
adequate preparation for the proposed research project. We believe this
criterion will support the programmatic goal of the DDRA and FRA to
promote training ``in United States schools, colleges, and
universities.'' Allowing applicants to show steps taken to improve
their language proficiency in an academic setting will better
demonstrate their ability to study in that language abroad. This change
may also encourage applicants to complete additional training as a way
to strengthen their application.
Finally, providing Secretarial discretion to determine the factors
that will be considered when reviewing the qualifications of applicants
would increase flexibility to implement the program within statutory
requirements while adapting to changing Departmental priorities for
international and foreign language education. This change will align
DDRA and FRA with other Departmental programs that provide discretion
to the Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when
deciding which criteria to emphasize in a competition year.
We do not anticipate any cost to the Federal government as a result
of this particular change, beyond nominal costs associated with
updating the application package. We do not expect any impact on the
number of applications received as a result of this change, nor do we
anticipate any costs to grant recipients. Accordingly, we do not
anticipate any burden cost with the addition of this particular
criterion.
[[Page 85505]]
Net Budget Impacts
These proposed regulations are not estimated to have a significant
net impact on the Federal budget. As noted above, the Department
estimates that these final regulations will not result in additional
net costs.
Alternatives Considered
In addition to allowing native speakers to receive points based on
Sec. Sec. 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. We did not take that approach because we believe
maintaining the requirement that applicants 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[.]'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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. We did not take that approach because we believe that
including a criterion that considers steps taken to improve proficiency
in a domestic academic setting better meets the statutory goal of
promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and
universities'' \8\ and will better demonstrate applicants' ability to
study in that language abroad. This change may also encourage
applicants to complete additional training as a way to strengthen their
application. Additionally, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act \9\
that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of ``small entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The small entities that will be affected by the proposed
regulations are IHEs that submit applications to the Department under
this program. The final regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on the small entities affected because they will not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The final regulations will impose minimal requirements to
ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
In the NPRM, we invited the public to comment on our proposed
certification that these regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We did not
receive any comments on this subject.
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 regulations apply are postsecondary
institutions. However, we do not require institutions to report such
data to the Department. As a result, for purposes of this final rule,
the Department defines ``small entities'' by reference to enrollment to
allow meaningful comparison of regulatory impact across all types of
higher education institutions.\10\ We consider two-year postsecondary
educational institutions with enrollment of fewer than 500 full-time
equivalent (FTE) and 4-year postsecondary educational institutions with
enrollment of fewer than 1,000 FTE to be small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 organizations 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.
Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Type Small Total total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proprietary..................................................... 1,973 2,331 85
2-year...................................................... 1,734 1,990 87
4-year...................................................... 239 341 70
Private not-for-profit.......................................... 983 1,831 54
2-year...................................................... 185 203 91
4-year...................................................... 798 1,628 49
Public.......................................................... 380 1,924 20
2-year...................................................... 317 1,145 28
4-year...................................................... 63 779 8
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 3,336 6,086 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department analysis of 2020-21 IPEDS data.
The Department used Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) data from fiscal year 2020 reported under the finance data
category. This reporting does not include all participating
institutions and provides approximate data.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act also requires us to estimate the
effect of the final regulations on small entities. We identified 27 of
the 97 affected entities as small. As noted above, we estimated that
this final rule will result in benefits for all affected entities
without regulatory burden. We estimated that small institutions will,
on average, see an increase of approximately $952,400 in funding.
Similarly, we projected that non-small institutions will receive an
increase of approximately $407,900.
In terms of regulatory impact, these regulations are designed to
avoid excessive burdens or unnecessary Federal supervision. The minimal
cost that these regulations will impose are those associated with
grantees' obligation to certify participant eligibility and safeguard
the proper expenditure of program funds. Consequently, the Department
certifies
[[Page 85506]]
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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 PRA.\11\ This helps to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) of the regulations contain
information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department
submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for 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 these final regulations, we provide the control number assigned
by OMB to any information collection requirements. The information
collection impacted by these regulatory changes is the Application for
the DDRA and FRA Programs, OMB Control Number 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 Sec. Sec. 102(b)(6) and 104(e)(1) of
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-
Hays Act), 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 Department, U.S. foreign language and area studies specialists,
the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassies, Fulbright Commissions,
host country officials and scholars, and the FSB use these data. This
use is necessary to determine 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.
The Department awards grants under these programs annually.
The DDRA and FRA application (1840-0005) will be affected by the
regulatory changes in the following ways:
<bullet> We will change the application package to eliminate the
native language proficiency exclusion.
<bullet> We will include additional language in the DDRA and FRA
selection criteria (under Sec. Sec. 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3))
that requires minimal changes on the technical review forms.
Table 2--Estimated Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 total............ 495 .............. 11,875 .............. 157,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hour burden for individual DDRA student respondents is
estimated at an average of 25 hours for each student. The cost burden
for DDRA student applicants is zero. We estimated that the changes to
these regulations may result in a small increase in the number of DDRA
student respondents from 310 to 325 submitting a single application.
When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an increase in DDRA
student burden hours from 7,750 to 8,125.
We estimated the hour burden for the 50 DDRA institutional project
directors to be 25 hours for reviewing each DDRA application for a
total burden of 1,250. The cost burden of $47.20 for institutional DDRA
applicants totals $59,000. We used feedback from DDRA respondents
during the last three years to estimate these amounts.
The hour burden for the 70 individual FRA respondents is estimated
to average 25 hours for each faculty member to complete the application
for a total of 1,750 hours. The cost burden for faculty applicants at
$36.33 totals $63,578.
The hour burden for the 50 FRA institutional project directors is
estimated to be 15 hours for reviewing each FRA application for a total
burden of 750 hours. The cost burden for institutional FRA applicants
at $47.20 is $35,400. These estimates are based on feedback from FRA
respondents during the last three years.
These estimates incorporate 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); and
5. Transmit completed individual applications to the Department in
a single submission via G5 (project director).
We note that the hour burdens for the DDRA and FRA project
directors differ because the FRA program is smaller and has fewer
applicants. DDRA project directors generally process applications for
multiple students; FRA project directors generally process an
application for a single faculty member.
The data in Table 2 are an estimate of the time needed for both
institutional project directors and individual student and faculty
respondents to complete tasks listed.
[[Page 85507]]
Table 3--Collection of Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control #1840-0005--estimated
Regulatory section Information collection burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Sec. 662.21(c)(3)............... This regulatory provision will The number of respondents and the
require changing the application number of annual burden hours
package to eliminate the native will increase to 495 and 11,875
language proficiency exclusion. respectively; the annual burden
costs will remain at $157,978.
34 CFR Sec. 663.21(c)(3)............... This regulatory provision will The number of respondents and the
require new language in the DDRA number of annual burden hours
and FRA selection criteria to will increase to 495 and 11,875
consider steps an applicant has respectively; the annual burden
taken to improve their language costs will remain at $157,978.
proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these
changes to the information collection requirements. We invited the
public to comment on the ICR but did not receive any comments.
OMB approved the collection of information contained in these
regulations under OMB Control number 1840-0005 on March 2, 2023.
Intergovernmental Review
The proposed regulations are not subject to E.O. 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Educational Impact
Based on our review, we have determined that these regulations do
not require transmission of information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires us to obtain 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free 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, Educational research, Educational study
programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships.
34 CFR Part 663
Colleges and universities, Educational research, Educational study
programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships,
Teachers.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends
parts 662 and 663 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
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 Fulbright-Hays Act, 22
U.S.C. 2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Add Sec. 662.8 to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 662.8 Severability.
If any provision of this part or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the
application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not
be affected thereby.
0
3. 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;
* * * * *
PART 663--FULBRIGHT-HAYS FACULTY RESEARCH ABROAD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
0
4. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 102(b)(6) of the Fulbright-Hays Act, 22
U.S.C. 2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.
0
5. Add Sec. 663.8 to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 663.8 Severability.
If any provision of this part or its application to any person,
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the
application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not
be affected thereby.
[[Page 85508]]
0
6. 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;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-26991 Filed 12-7-23; 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 December 8, 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.