Proposed Rule2024-03149
National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 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
February 22, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations that govern the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.015A, and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.015B. The proposed regulations would clarify interpretations of statutory language, redesign the selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon program management experience. These proposed changes would remove ambiguity and redundancy in the selection criteria and definitions of key terms, improve the application process, and align the administration of these programs with developments in modern foreign language and area studies education. A brief summary of the proposed rule is available on Regulations.gov in the docket for the rulemaking.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13516-13545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03149]
[[Page 13515]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 36
February 22, 2024
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 655, 656, and 657
National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13516]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 655, 656, and 657
RIN 1840-AD94
[Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0017]
National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area
Studies Fellowships 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 National Resource Centers (NRC) Program, Assistance Listing Number
84.015A, and the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships
Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.015B. The proposed regulations
would clarify interpretations of statutory language, redesign the
selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon program
management experience. These proposed changes would remove ambiguity
and redundancy in the selection criteria and definitions of key terms,
improve the application process, and align the administration of these
programs with developments in modern foreign language and area studies
education. A brief summary of the proposed rule is available on
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> in the docket for the rulemaking.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 25, 2024.
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
contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments 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.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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">www.regulations.gov</a>. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to 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 will not make comments that contain
personally identifiable information about someone other than the
commenter publicly available on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> for privacy
reasons. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their
comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Duvall, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 5C105, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-0383. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45312c282a312d3c6b2130332429290520216b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5c1dcd8dac1ddcc9bd1c0c3d4d9d9f5d0d19bd2dac3">[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:
Executive Summary
Purpose of this Regulatory Action: The regulations for the NRC and
FLAS programs were last revised in 2009 (74 FR 35070) and were impacted
by subsequent technical corrections made to 34 CFR part 655,
International Education Programs--General Provisions, adopted in 2014
(79 FR 75867). Because these regulations provide the foundation for the
administration of these programs, we have reviewed them, evaluated them
for provisions that, over time, have become outdated, unnecessary, or
inconsistent with other Department regulations as well as with
established practices for administering these programs in the
Department, and identified ways in which they can be updated,
streamlined, and otherwise improved. Specifically, we propose to amend
parts 655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
These changes are detailed in the Summary of Major Provisions of this
Regulatory Action.
Summary of Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action: As discussed
in greater detail in the Summary of Proposed Regulations section of
this document, the proposed regulations would:
<bullet> Make technical updates to refer to up-to-date statutory
authorities, remove outdated terminology, use consistent references,
and eliminate obsolete cross-references.
<bullet> Clarify and streamline the selection criteria the
Secretary may use to make discretionary awards under parts 656 and 657.
<bullet> Add new selection criteria the Secretary may use to make
discretionary grants for special purposes under part 656.
<bullet> Add definitions for ambiguous terms related to program
administration, including ``areas of national need'' and ``diverse
perspectives.''
<bullet> Add a requirement for a geographical area of focus for
discretionary grants made under parts 656 and 657.
<bullet> Clarify the differences between comprehensive and
undergraduate National Resource Centers for Foreign Language and Area
Studies.
<bullet> Add a student eligibility requirement for fellowships
awarded under part 657 based upon a student's educational program.
<bullet> Simplify the administration of allocations of fellowships
made under part 657 by eliminating the institutional payment as a
component of fellowships and allowing fellows to receive a single
stipend payment.
Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of
this regulatory action would outweigh any associated costs to States,
local educational agencies (LEAs), colleges and universities, and other
Department applicants and grantees. The proposed regulations would, in
part, update terminology to align with applicable statutes and
regulations. Many of the adjustments would support the Department, its
grantees, or both, in selecting high-quality grantees and to support
those grantees in ensuring the effectiveness and improvement of their
projects. These changes include, for example, altering selection
criteria to allow for a more efficient and effective peer review
process, as announced in a notice inviting applications (NIA), and
adding and clarifying definitions that apply to the programs affected
so that peer reviewers and applicants have a better sense of how
application reviews are conducted. Please refer to the Regulatory
Impact Analysis section of this document for a more detailed discussion
of costs and benefits.
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.
[[Page 13517]]
We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 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
Programs authorized under title VI of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended (HEA), build institutional capacity for training and
research in modern foreign languages and area studies; promote access
to international and foreign language knowledge; respond to the ongoing
national need for individuals with expertise and competence in world
languages and area studies; advance national security by developing a
pipeline of highly trained experts in critical world regions who are
proficient in a large number of diverse modern foreign languages,
especially but not limited to less commonly taught languages; and
contribute to developing a globally competent multilingual and
multicultural workforce able to engage with people in the United States
and around the world.
The NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program are the two
largest programs funded under title VI of the HEA. The NRC Program
provides grants to institutions of higher education (IHE) and consortia
of IHEs to establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and
undergraduate foreign language and area studies centers. These centers
serve as centers of excellence for training and teaching in any modern
foreign language, research, and instruction in fields needed to provide
full understanding of areas, regions, or countries where the languages
are commonly used. See 34 CFR part 656; 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1). The FLAS
Fellowships Program awards allocations of fellowships, through IHEs or
consortia of IHEs, to meritorious students enrolled in programs that
offer performance-based instruction in world languages in combination
with area studies, international studies, or the international aspects
of professional studies. See 34 CFR part 657; 20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1).
Both programs share a common focus on modern foreign language and area
studies education.
The regulations for these programs were last revised in 2009 (74 FR
35070) and were impacted by subsequent technical corrections made to 34
CFR part 655, International Education Programs--General Provisions,
adopted in 2014 (79 FR 75867). We propose to amend the regulations that
govern the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program, and to make
related amendments and technical corrections to 34 CFR part 655. The
proposed changes would clarify interpretations of statutory language,
redesign the selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon
program management experience. The proposed regulations would remove
ambiguity and redundancy in the selection criteria and definitions of
key terms, improve the application process, and align the
administration of these programs with developments in modern foreign
language and area studies education.
Selection Criteria and Application Process. Over many grant cycles,
administering the NRC and FLAS grant competitions using the current
selection criteria has been unwieldy and burdensome for both applicants
and peer reviewers. The Secretary proposes changes to the selection
criteria that would clarify selection criteria, eliminate redundant
criteria, reduce the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, and
improve alignment with the statute, particularly with regard to
comprehensive and undergraduate Centers. The Secretary proposes
reducing the comprehensive NRC selection criteria from 10 criteria with
27 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24 sub-criteria; the undergraduate
NRC selection criteria from 10 criteria with 26 sub-criteria to six
criteria with 24 sub-criteria; and the FLAS selection criteria from
nine criteria with 22 sub-criteria to six criteria with 22 sub-
criteria. The proposed criteria include some new criteria for the NRC
Program, including a ``quality of existing academic programs''
criterion, and also for FLAS, including ``project design and
rationale'' and ``project planning and budget'' criteria.
Definitions. The Secretary proposes, to remain current with
standards in the fields of language and area studies, to add and remove
definitions in 34 CFR part 655, including defining ``areas of national
need'' and ``consultation on areas of national need'' to better align
the programs with the statute. The Secretary also proposes adding,
among others, definitions of (a) ``educational program abroad'' and
``diverse perspectives'' to part 655, and (b) add a definition of
``stipend'' to the FLAS regulations in part 657. These proposed
definitions would clarify concepts that have proven to be opaque or
absent during the application and administration phases of these
grants.
Alignment with the statute. The Secretary proposes to amend the
regulations to align them more closely with the statute and with
accepted grant administrative practices. The NRC Program is intended to
operate as a national network of centers to advance foreign language
and area studies knowledge and expertise. NRCs work together and
separately toward a common national goal of providing resources for
teaching, training, and research relating to foreign languages and area
studies. The proposed changes would highlight this common national goal
and renew emphasis on the importance of less commonly taught languages
to the NRC Program. The proposed changes would also clarify the
expectation that all centers should have a geographically defined
focus, which helps centers align their activities with areas of
national need identified by the Secretary and the statute's mandated
consultation on national need for foreign language and area studies
knowledge and expertise. The proposed changes would draw a clear
distinction between undergraduate and comprehensive NRCs and clarify
the role that each type of center plays in the NRC network. Finally,
the proposed changes, among other things, would clarify student
eligibility, include a student's educational program as a relevant
criterion for determining FLAS fellowship eligibility, and define
``distance education.''
Summary of Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in
effect.
[[Page 13518]]
Part 655
Section 655.4 What definitions apply to the International Education
Programs?
Statute: Sections 601 through 613 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121-1130b)
provide authority for defining terms necessary for the implementation
of the International Education Programs.
Current Regulations: Section 655.4 sets forth definitions for the
International Education Programs, including the NRC Program and FLAS
Fellowships Program.
Proposed Regulation: The definitions in Sec. 655.4 apply to all
International Education Programs, including but not limited to NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program. Proposed Sec. 655.4 would add
new definitions, consolidate current definitions that apply to multiple
International Education Programs, and remove one term. Specifically,
the Department proposes to add a definition of ``consultation on areas
of national need,'' based on the process outlined in the statute, as
well as a definition of ``areas of national need.'' We also propose a
definition of ``diverse perspectives.'' Additional proposed changes
would relocate and centralize definitions such as ``area studies'' and
``intensive language instruction'' that were previously defined in the
context of the NRC Program. The proposed changes would incorporate
definitions for ``educational program abroad'' from section 631 of the
HEA. The proposed changes incorporate definitions for ``academic
engagement,'' ``clock hour,'' ``correspondence course,'' ``credit
hour,'' ``distance education,'' ``educational program,'' ``enrolled,''
full-time student,'' ``graduate or professional student,'' ``half-time
student,'' ``National level,'' ``regular student,'' and ``undergraduate
student'' from Sec. Sec. 600.2 and 668.2. Finally, the proposed
changes would remove the definition of ``critical languages'' from
Sec. 655.4.
Reasons: The Department proposes to remove the definition of
``critical languages'' in current Sec. 655.4, which was based on a
separate statute (the Education for Economic Security Act). The
proposed definitions of ``areas of national need'' and ``consultation
on areas of national need are tied more closely to the language and
goals of the program statute. The Department believes application of
these definitions would, as a practical matter, acknowledge the
statutorily required consultation process is sufficient to identify
languages that could be identified as ``areas of national need.'' A
list of languages created through this process would be substantially
the same as or identical to the updated list of ``critical languages''
required by current Sec. 655.4, eliminating the need for development
of a separate list of critical languages under current Sec. 655.4.
The new definitions generally would acknowledge the Secretary's
ability to identify relevant national needs and emphasize the
importance of the consultation process, as well as establishing a
single common term (``consultation on areas of national need'') to be
used in the implementation of the International Education Programs.
This would reduce the potential for confusion and improve the
efficiency of program implementation. The proposed definition of
``consultation on areas of national need'' also would assist and
provide additional clarity to NRC Program and FLAS Fellowship Program
applicants when completing their required assurances related to
national needs, which would assist the Secretary in identifying the
relevant ``areas of national need.'' As noted above, because
``consultation on areas of national need'' is statutorily required for
the grant programs funded under title VI of the HEA, which include the
NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowship program, see HEA Sec. 601(c),
adopting and applying that term would be more directly tailored to the
activities of the grant programs authorized under title VI than is the
current concept of ``critical languages,'' which is based on a
different statute (the Education for Economic Security Act (Pub. L. 98-
377) and also is used in HEA programs outside title VI.
The Department proposes a definition of ``diverse perspectives'' to
clarify the statutory requirement in section 602 of the HEA that
``activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives[,]''
emphasizing the relevance of a variety of viewpoints in understanding
world regions. The proposed change would reduce ambiguity by
introducing a standard interpretation and improve the efficiency of
program implementation.
The relocation of definitions for the terms ``area studies,''
``intensive language instruction,'' and ``educational program abroad''
would provide standard definitions applicable to all International
Education Programs. The proposed changes would standardize the use of
terms that apply to postsecondary education generally, by adding
references to other parts of title 34 that are also authorized by the
HEA. Specifically, the incorporation of terms defined in Sec. Sec.
600.2 and 668.2 would provide a shared set of terms that would more
closely align implementation of the International Education Programs
with implementation of the HEA.
Section 655.31 What general selection criteria does the Secretary use?
Statute: Sections 601 through 607 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121-1127)
provide authority for establishing general selection criteria necessary
for the implementation of the International Education Programs.
Current Regulations: Section 655.31(e)(2)(i) sets forth the factors
the Secretary considers as part of the ``adequacy of resources''
selection criterion, specifically whether the facilities the applicant
plans to use in carrying out its proposed project, ``other than
library,'' are adequate.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 655.31(e)(2)(i) would expand
the types of facilities that may be considered when evaluating this
selection criterion to include libraries.
Reasons: The proposed change would not specifically exclude any
type of facility when assessing the adequacy of an applicant's
resources, so an applicant would be able to address the adequacy of
library facilities if these facilities were relevant to the proposed
project. The proposed wording would recognize that libraries
increasingly fulfill a diverse set of functions at IHEs in support of
teaching, research, and engagement. In addition to housing various
collections and information professionals, libraries frequently are the
sites where specialized information technology, media production
facilities, and other resources are located.
Part 656
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122.
Current Regulations: Part 656 contains the regulations for the NRC
Program, titled ``National Resource Centers Program for Foreign
Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International
Studies.''
Proposed Regulation: The Department proposes to replace part 656 in
its entirety due to the number of necessary changes and the
accompanying need to reorganize this part to improve readability. We
propose to combine sections that address similar topics, and to
eliminate duplicative or contradictory paragraphs. We propose to rename
part 656 as ``National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language
and Area Studies'' to align more closely with the headings in 20 U.S.C.
1122 and 1122(a), which do not include ``international studies.''
Reasons: As described in more detail in each of the following
sections related to part 656, these changes would allow the Department
to substantially revise
[[Page 13519]]
the selection criteria and application processes for the NRC Program,
introduce new definitions, revise or eliminate existing definitions,
align the regulations with the statute, and reduce the burden
associated with the NRC Program.
Section 656.1 What is the purpose of the National Resource Centers
Program?
Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(B) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B))
provides that centers and programs awarded grants are national
resources for teaching modern foreign languages as well as for related
research and instruction in other academic fields. Sections 601(a)(4)
and (b)(1)(C) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(4) and (b)(1)(C))
specifically mention the importance of less commonly taught languages
for programs authorized under title VI of the HEA. These sections also
highlight the importance of enhancing the capacity of IHEs in the
United States to train experts in modern foreign language and area
studies and produce research based upon such expertise.
Current Regulation: Section 656.1 describes the purpose of the NRC
Program.
Proposed Regulation: We propose to expand the introductory language
to Sec. 656.1 to require Centers to act cooperatively as national
resources to carry out program purposes. We also propose to expand the
portion of the program description regarding resources for teaching to
emphasize less commonly taught languages.
Reasons: The Nation's security, stability, and economic vitality
depend upon the existence of experts in the United States who enable
robust research and training at IHEs. The NRC Program exists to ensure
that institutional capacity at IHEs in the United States meets or
exceeds this threshold. Emphasizing less commonly taught languages
would signal that the NRC Program supports the development and
maintenance of such capacity for all world areas, all modern foreign
languages, and all academic disciplines at all times. Given the
unpredictability of world events, this broad-based support ensures that
a pool of experts and knowledgeable individuals are prepared to face
any threats and take advantage of any opportunities that require
knowledge of modern foreign languages and area studies topics and
approaches.
The proposed changes also would add that the NRC Program
anticipates that grantees will act cooperatively as a network of IHEs
that jointly serve as national resources for teaching, training, and
research related to modern foreign languages and area studies. The
proposed wording would emphasize the core identity and sense of purpose
that NRCs share. The proposed change would not alter eligibility
criteria for the NRC Program.
Despite the competitive nature of discretionary grants, the NRC
Program is intended to build institutional capacity that broadly
benefits the United States after the end of a single grant period. This
effect is magnified when NRCs engage in joint activities, form
partnerships, and build linkages to one another and to other
postsecondary institutions in the United States. This approach ensures
that a wide range of IHEs can contribute to meeting national needs
related to modern foreign language and area studies identified by
Federal agencies and other needs in the education, business, and
nonprofit sectors.
Section 656.2 What entities are eligible to receive a grant?
Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(A) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A))
authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions of higher
education or consortia of such institutions. Section 602(a)(3)-(4) of
the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4)) authorizes the Secretary to make
additional grants to centers for specific purposes, such as maintaining
important library collections.
Current Regulation: Section 656.2 states that an IHE or a
consortium of IHEs is eligible to receive a grant under the NRC
Program, but this section does not specifically address the eligibility
for additional grants authorized by 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4).
Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend the eligibility criteria
in Sec. 656.2 to clarify that only an IHE or a consortium of IHEs that
has received a grant under part 656 as either a comprehensive Center or
undergraduate Center is eligible to receive a grant for the purposes
described in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4).
Reasons: The current regulation does not address the eligibility
criteria for additional grants authorized by 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4),
which are for maintaining library collections, and for conducting
outreach and summer institutes, respectively. This creates ambiguity
regarding the appropriate recipients of these grants. The proposed
regulation would clarify that eligibility for these additional grants
is limited to National Resource Centers, which accurately reflects the
statute's characterization of these grants as additional or special
purpose grants for Centers, to carry out specific activities in
addition to those already part of the Center's funded project.
Section 656.3 What defines a comprehensive or undergraduate National
Resource Center?
Statute: Section 631(a)(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2))
defines ``comprehensive foreign language and area or international
studies center.'' Section 631(a)(10) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10))
defines ``undergraduate foreign language and area or international
studies center.'' Under 20 U.S.C. 1127(b), the Secretary must set
specific selection criteria to attain the objectives of the two types
of centers, including the degree to which the activities of centers and
programs address the national needs built into these definitions.
Current Regulation: Section 656.7 contains definitions for
comprehensive and undergraduate Centers based on most, but not all, of
the comparable definitions in 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and (a)(10). Section
656.7 states that Centers provide training at the undergraduate level
and that comprehensive Centers provide graduate and professional
training in addition to undergraduate training. Section 656.3 lists
specific activities that define all National Resource Centers based on
the allowable activities for all centers in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(2).
Proposed Regulation: The Department proposes to consolidate
multiple current sections into proposed Sec. 656.3, require all
centers to adopt a geographically defined area of focus, and more
completely define comprehensive and undergraduate Centers based on 20
U.S.C. 1132(a).
Reasons: The proposed approach would more clearly highlight the
distinct purposes of the two Center types and more closely align with
the statutory language. The definitional requirements for the two types
of centers would address similar topics in a parallel format, while
aligning with the distinct purpose of each type of Center and the
different capacities of the IHEs likely to host these centers. Both
types of Centers would still be required to engage in activities
associated with the selection criteria described in 20 U.S.C. 1127(b).
These activities include, among others, the generation and
dissemination of information to the public, which is more commonly
described as outreach.
The current approach accurately highlights many similarities
between the two types of Centers but omits certain statutory
differences and does not adequately distinguish the distinct purposes
of these types of Centers. For
[[Page 13520]]
example, current Sec. 656.3(f) states that both comprehensive and
undergraduate Centers must employ faculty who engage in training and
research relevant to the center's focus. The statutory definition of
``comprehensive Centers'' in 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) is more precise,
however, requiring comprehensive Centers to employ a critical mass of
scholars related to a geographic concentration. Similarly, current
Sec. 656.3(e) prescribes that comprehensive and undergraduate Centers
both have important library collections. However, the statute imposes
this requirement only on comprehensive Centers (20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2)),
while requiring in section 1132(a)(10) that an undergraduate Center
maintain library collections sufficient to support undergraduate
education.
Current Sec. Sec. 656.3 and 656.4 also omit certain statutory
requirements that further clarify the respective roles of comprehensive
and undergraduate Centers. For example, these sections do not clearly
identify undergraduate Centers' contribution to the national interest
by serving as a source of graduates who matriculate into advanced
language and area studies programs. See 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10). These
sections also do not mention that, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2),
comprehensive Centers contribute to the national interest through
advanced research and scholarship.
The current regulation allows international studies centers to
declare a thematic focus with no geographically defined referent. The
proposed regulation would require all Centers to have a geographically
defined focus. This change in policy would better support the program
purpose. Although 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A) authorizes the Secretary to
make grants to area studies or international studies and programs, 20
U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iv) states that all centers are expected to
serve as resources for both area and international studies. We do not
interpret the phrase ``area or international studies'' as a binary
choice in the proposed regulations. Instead, we proposed to interpret
the statute as describing the importance that a Center places on area
studies relative to international studies such that neither approach
could be completely absent from a center.
Area studies and international studies are not mutually exclusive
and should be interpreted as mutually reinforcing academic approaches
that should be represented to some degree within each Center. According
to 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B), Centers are expected to be national
resources for teaching of any modern foreign language; instruction in
fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or
countries in which such language is commonly used; research and
training in international studies, and the international and foreign
language aspects of professional and other fields of study; and
instruction and research on issues in world affairs that concern one or
more countries. This portion of the statute suggests that focus on the
study of a geographically defined area and international studies are
complementary aspects of all centers. In addition, 20 U.S.C.
1122(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) clearly articulates the interconnectedness of
these characteristics, including a specific relationship between modern
foreign languages and the specific places in which those languages are
used.
Area studies, as defined in section 1132(a), is a broad concept
based on the comprehensive study of specific societies that does not
exclude any discipline or approach. The inclusion of societies in this
definition complements the program's interest in modern foreign
languages and specific places, as articulated in 20 U.S.C.
1122(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). International studies approaches complement the
specificity of area studies by drawing attention to patterns, trends,
and phenomena relevant to understanding the larger context in which
societies exist. It is now commonplace for Centers to emphasize
interregional and global flows of people, concepts, and objects in
their activities, so this proposed change would only emphasize how area
studies and international studies offer complementary approaches to
instruction, research, and training. This proposed interpretation also
aligns with the larger program goals of section 1122(a)(1)(B). That is,
even with a geographical focus, Centers would still be required to
engage in all these activities to meet the program's purpose, including
support for international studies. Centering a geographic world area
also would help centers align their activities to the recommendations
provided by the ``consultation on areas of national need'' for
expertise in foreign languages and world regions required by 20 U.S.C.
1121(c)(1). A geographically defined focus also would support the
Secretary's efforts to distribute funds in a manner that supports the
consultation, which necessarily generates recommendations related to
specific language and geographically defined world areas rather than
themes or topics in international studies.
The importance of a geographically defined focus for Centers also
is evident in other portions of the statute. Under 20 U.S.C.
1132(a)(2), a comprehensive Center must employ scholars related to a
``geographic concentration'' and offer intensive language training in
its ``area of specialization.'' Section 1132(a)(10) expresses an
expectation that undergraduate Centers will produce graduates who
matriculate into advanced language and area studies programs.
Accordingly, requiring a geographically defined area of focus for both
comprehensive and undergraduate Centers is not incompatible with the
overall purpose of the program. Under the proposed regulations, centers
would retain the flexibility to define their geographic area of focus,
which may be a traditionally recognized world region, a single country,
or another configuration of space that draws attention to world issues,
peoples, and any related languages outside the United States.
Section 656.4 For what special purposes may a Center receive an
additional grant under this part?
Statute: Section 602(a)(3)-(4) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-
(4)) authorizes the Secretary to make additional grants to centers for
specific purposes, such as maintaining important library collections,
conducting outreach, and hosting summer institutes.
Current Regulation: Section 656.5(b) allows the Secretary to make
additional grants to support linkages, outreach, partnerships, and
summer institutes related to the program's purpose, in the context of
addressing activities authorized by the statute.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 656.4 would be a standalone
section addressing the additional grants to centers authorized by 20
U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4) and, consistent with the statute, would include
the maintenance of important library collections among the list of
permissible purposes for such grants.
Reasons: We believe the creation of a standalone section that
addresses additional grants and mirrors the language in 20 U.S.C.
1122(a)(3)-(4) would allow for more efficient administration of the NRC
program. The proposed regulation would clarify that these additional
grants are for existing centers and any such additional grants also
could be used for maintaining appropriate library collections.
Section 656.6 What definitions apply to this program?
Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the
Secretary to
[[Page 13521]]
define terms necessary to make grants under the NRC Program.
Current Regulation: Section 656.7 defines several terms relevant to
the NRC Program and several terms that relate to multiple programs
authorized by title VI of the HEA.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 656.6 would define ``critical
mass of scholars'' and clarify the definition of ``Center'' for
purposes of the NRC Program. The proposed regulation also would remove
the definitions of ``area studies,'' ``comprehensive Center,''
``intensive language instruction,'' and ``undergraduate Center'' all of
which would be relocated to part 655.
Reasons: Reducing the number of definitions in proposed Sec.
656.6, and clarifying those that remain, would improve the efficiency
of NRC Program administration and reduce the burden on applicants and
grantees. Defining the statutory term ``critical mass of scholars''
would provide guidance to applicants and reduce ambiguity in the
regulations. It would also provide substantial flexibility in the
describing qualifications, density, and overall significance of
scholars.
Proposed Sec. 656.6 also would clarify that a ``Center'' refers to
a grantee under the NRC Program, regardless of its title or
organizational form on campus. Grantees (or ``centers'' for purposes of
the NRC Program) are distinct administrative subunits within an IHE.
Finally, terms related to the administration of multiple
International Education Programs authorized by title VI of the HEA
would be relocated to part 655, which applies to all International
Education Programs.
Section 656.7 Severability
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122 authorizes the Secretary to define terms
necessary to make grants under the NRC Program.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not address
severability.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulation would add a
severability provision.
Reasons: The Department seeks to clarify its intent that, with
regard to severability, each of the regulations in 34 CFR part 656 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.
Application and Selection Processes (Sec. Sec. 656.10, 656.11, and
656.20)
Statute: Section 602(e) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires
institutions seeking a grant under this program to follow an
application process designed by the Secretary.
Current Regulation: Section 656.10 allows an applicant to submit a
combined application for the NRC and FLAS programs. Section 656.20
describes which selection criteria are used and how the Department
communicates the point values for the selection criteria.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulation would update the
application and selection process to provide more accurate guidance
based on current program management practices. The proposed change
would eliminate the possibility of submitting to both the NRC and FLAS
Fellowships Program simultaneously (though applicants still could
continue to submit separate applications under each program). Proposed
Sec. 656.10 would affirm that the NRC Program follows the Department's
standard procedures for grant applications, by directing potential
applicants to the application notice in the Federal Register for
guidance. Proposed Sec. 656.11 would clarify the assurances and
materials required in every application for the NRC Program. Proposed
Sec. 656.20 would add additional information about the selection
process, including a description of the peer review and ranking
process, and the process that would apply to the grants authorized
under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)- (4).
Reasons: The NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs have long been
identified by separate Assistance Listing Numbers, and applications for
these programs have been evaluated using program-specific selection
criteria. The Department began using <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> to receive applications
for these two programs for the fiscal year 2022 competition. In
addition to the substantive differences between the programs and the
selection criteria, <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> cannot accept one application for two
programs with individual Assistance Listing Numbers. Given these
substantive differences and technical limitations, removing the option
for simultaneous submission would improve the efficiency of program
administration.
The additional information on assurances and required application
materials in proposed Sec. 656.11 would clarify statutory requirements
and improve the efficiency of program administration. Section 602(e) of
the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires an explanation of how grant funded
activities reflect diverse perspectives, as defined in proposed Sec.
655.4, and how applicants will encourage government service in areas of
national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, business,
and non-profit sectors. The Department already has required applicants
for the NRC Program to submit these assurances for multiple
competitions. The proposed regulation would emphasize the importance of
this requirement.
Proposed Sec. 656.20 would promote transparency and support
efficient program management by adding a more detailed description of
the selection process. The proposed change also would clarify that
applications for grants to centers for special purposes authorized in
20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4) would be evaluated using a newly developed set
of selection criteria specifically designed for this purpose.
Under proposed Sec. 656.20, experts in relevant fields would
review applications for comprehensive Centers, undergraduate Centers,
and special purpose grants to determine excellence based on the
appropriate selection criteria. Applications with similar areas of
geographic focus would be grouped together. Peer reviewers would score
each application separately, and then applications from each group
would be selected for funding in rank order within each group based on
the peer reviewers' scores. If a lack of funds prevented funding all
highly ranked applications in each group, the proposed regulation would
permit the Department to consider the degree to which applications were
likely to serve any competition priorities published in the application
notice that were derived from the ``consultation on areas of national
need'' or that were related to specific countries, world areas, or
languages.
Variations on the proposed peer review process have been included
in the application notice for several grant cycles. This proposed
change would increase transparency and benefit new applicants that may
be unfamiliar with the selection process. It would also affirm the
importance of supporting the study of world areas or languages
identified through the consultation process or priorities established
by the Secretary.
Selection Criteria and Program Priorities (Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22,
656.23, 656.24)
Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(B) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B))
describes centers and programs awarded grants under this section as
national resources
[[Page 13522]]
for teaching modern foreign languages and providing related research
and instruction in other academic fields. Section 602(a)(3)-(4) of the
HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4)) authorizes the Secretary to make
additional grants to these centers for specific purposes, such as
maintaining important library collections. Section 607(a) of the HEA
(20 U.S.C. 1127(a)) requires separate grant selection criteria for
comprehensive Centers and for undergraduate Centers. Section 607(b) of
the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1127(b)) requires the Secretary to set selection
criteria that will enable reviewers to determine excellence relative to
the program's objectives. This section also requires the Secretary to
consider specific selection criteria, such as the degree to which
activities of centers and programs address national needs.
Current Regulation: Section 656.21 describes the selection criteria
for comprehensive Centers. Section 656.22 describes the selection
criteria for undergraduate Centers. Existing regulations do not
describe selection criteria for additional grants made to centers for
specific purposes mentioned in the statute. Section 656.23 describes
the possible funding priorities for the NRC Program.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed changes to the selection criteria
would add clarity, eliminate redundancy, and reduce the burden on
applicants while improving alignment with the authorizing statute. The
current selection criteria for comprehensive Centers are comprised of
ten criteria and 27 specific sub-criteria, excluding competitive
preference priorities. The current selection criteria for undergraduate
Centers are comprised of ten criteria and 26 specific sub-criteria,
excluding competitive preference priorities. The proposed changes would
reduce the number of criteria for both comprehensive and undergraduate
Centers to six and reduce the number of sub-criteria to 24. The
proposed changes also would add a new set of selection criteria for the
additional grants made to Centers for specific purposes authorized
under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)-(4).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)-(c) and 656.22(a)-(c) would require
applicants to describe the current state of administrative operations,
academic programs, educational resources, outreach and engagement
initiatives, and other relevant activities. Proposed Sec. Sec.
656.21(d)-(g) and 656.22(d)-(g) would ask applicants to describe their
goals and plans for the grant period. Proposed Sec. 656.23 would add
selection criteria for additional special purpose grants authorized by
the statute.
Proposed Sec. 656.24 would rephrase the current list of priorities
in Sec. 656.23, add new priorities related to the teaching of specific
modern foreign languages, the ``consultation on areas of national
need,'' and the type of center, and it would remove a priority related
to the types of center activities.
Reasons: The proposed revisions to the selection criteria are
designed to provide greater alignment with the NRC Program statute. As
described further below, focusing proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)-(c) and
656.22(a)-(c) on an applicant's current state of operations would help
us select grantees that are most likely to meet the minimum
characteristics of comprehensive and undergraduate Centers as defined
in the statute and these proposed regulations. Proposed Sec. Sec.
656.21(d)-(f) and 656.22(d)-(f) would require applicants to address
plans to enhance their institutional capacity and conduct other project
activities during the grant's performance period. The proposed
arrangement of selection criteria would streamline the structure of the
application narrative.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a) and 656.22(a) would add a criterion
for ``Center scope, personnel and operations.'' This proposed criterion
would combine and streamline elements of the selection criteria found
in the current Sec. Sec. 656.21(b) and 656.21(d) for comprehensive
Centers and Sec. Sec. 656.22(b) and 656.22(d) for undergraduate
Centers. The proposed sections would continue to address the core
operations of the proposed center, including staffing arrangement,
governance, nondiscriminatory employment practices, and institutional
commitment. Grouping sub-criteria related to these topics into a single
category and clarifying that these sub-criteria refer specifically to
the administrative unit seeking a designation as a National Resource
Center under this program would reduce the confusion among applicants
regarding the appropriate scope for this category. For example, a
discussion of non-discriminatory employment practices should address
practices specific to the proposed center rather than only providing
general statements about practices at the institution as a whole,
except to provide necessary context for the proposed Center's
operations. The proposed category also would address topics that the
current selection criteria do not address, such as the quality of
existing academic programs and the impact of existing activities and
resources.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a) and 656.22(a) would require
applicants to explain how the focus of a proposed comprehensive Center
or undergraduate Center, respectively, aligns with a geographic world
area and existing opportunities for training, research, and instruction
at the applicant institution. This approach would benefit applicants
because we recognize that applicants may propose novel or distinctive
approaches grounded in research, so they would be able to clearly
explain the proposed center's area of focus to reviewers and describe
the rationale for it.
As noted above, proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a) and 656.22(a) also
would combine elements of the selection criteria found in the current
Sec. Sec. 656.21(b) and 656.21(d) for comprehensive Centers and
656.22(b) and 656.22(d) for undergraduate Centers, respectively. The
proposed criteria would continue to address staff qualifications and
professional development, nondiscriminatory employment practices,
oversight arrangements, and institutional commitment.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)(2) and 656.22(a)(2) would limit
consideration of personnel qualifications to the position of project
director and the proposed Center's staff, and focus on administrative
capacity, without extending consideration to teaching faculty and other
staff as under current Sec. Sec. 656.21(b)(1) and 656.22(b)(1).
Applicants typically have large numbers of teaching faculty, most of
whom are not directly involved in the administration of a proposed
Center. Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(b)(3)-(4) and 656.22(b)(3)-(4) would
require applicants to describe the qualifications of teaching faculty
to demonstrate the quality of academic programs, which more closely
aligns with the major responsibilities of most teaching faculty.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)(3) and 656.22(a)(3) would specifically
require consortia applicants to provide a rationale for the formation
of a consortium, which would allow reviewers to evaluate the
administrative impact of the consortium agreement.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)(4) and 656.22(a)(4) would require
applicants to describe financial, administrative, and other support
specifically for the proposed Center rather than for the entire
relevant subject area as under current Sec. Sec. 656.21(d) and
656.22(d). Reported amounts of financial support are subject to wide
variation for reasons unrelated to an institution's actual level of
commitment. Labor and other costs vary substantially by geographic
location within the United States. Financial support for students may
reflect an IHE's tuition rates, which vary widely across institutions.
For example,
[[Page 13523]]
an institution that charges very modest tuition and routinely waives
all tuition and mandatory fees for students in an area studies program
may report a lower level of total financial support for students under
the current selection criteria than an institution that charges much
higher tuition and only waives a small portion of tuition for a similar
population of students. The proposed change would allow reviewers to
evaluate institutional support that is directly relevant to the
administration of the applicant's proposed project and the resources
that will support the applicant to conduct project activities. The
other proposed selection criteria provide alternative opportunities to
demonstrate the effects of an institution's financial support for the
proposed Center's area of focus in terms of the availability and
quality of various educational resources, such as teaching staff,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach
activities, and student support.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(b) and 656.22(b) would add a criterion
for ``Quality of existing academic programs.'' This proposed criterion
would combine elements of the selection criteria found in the current
Sec. Sec. 656.21(f)-(h) and 656.22(f)-(h) for the comprehensive
Centers and undergraduate Centers, respectively. The proposed criteria
would continue to address elements of curriculum design, language
instruction, non-language area studies instruction, but the proposed
category would allow applicants to address these elements in a more
integrated manner, emphasizing how these elements of academic
excellence are closely interconnected. Overall, the proposed changes
would explicitly require applicants to describe distinctive strengths
in instruction and curriculum design, so applicants would be able to
highlight features of national significance. Proposed Sec. Sec.
656.21(b)(1) and 656.22(b)(1) would continue to emphasize the degree to
which intentionally interdisciplinary approaches to instruction,
training, and research are indicators of excellence for the NRC
Program. Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(b)(3) and 656.22(b)(3) would
require applicants to describe whether applicants integrate performance
goals into language instruction and how applicants determine whether
those goals are being met. This sub-criterion would acknowledge that
the design, implementation, and ongoing improvement of language
instruction is an indicator of excellence.
The proposed changes in Sec. Sec. 656.21(b) and 656.22(b) also use
the definitional characteristics that appear in the statute as the
basis for distinguishing more clearly between the complementary
purposes of the academic programs associated with comprehensive Centers
and the academic programs of undergraduate Centers. Proposed Sec.
656.21(b)(1) would require applicants for a comprehensive Center to
demonstrate that the applicant's institution or consortium of
institutions serve undergraduate, graduate, and professional students
through relevant educational programs. Proposed Sec. 656.22(b)(1)
would require applicants for an undergraduate Center to demonstrate
that the institution or consortium of institutions primarily serves
undergraduate students through educational programs as an outgrowth of
the institution's mission and identity as an institution focused
predominantly or even exclusively on undergraduate education. In this
context, an institution ``predominantly'' serves undergraduate students
when baccalaureate or higher degrees represent at least 50 percent of
all degrees but where fewer than 50 master's degrees or 20 doctoral
degrees were awarded in the most recent year preceding the application
deadline for which data is available. These proposed criteria would
improve the selection of all Centers described in 20 U.S.C.
1122(a)(1)(A), including a diverse network of undergraduate Centers
that are distinct from the comprehensive Centers. These proposed
criteria would not require the existence of any specific educational
programs at applicant institutions.
The differences between comprehensive Centers and undergraduate
Centers also would appear in other criteria. Proposed Sec.
656.21(b)(2) would require comprehensive Centers to demonstrate the
existence of intensive language instruction, which is a characteristic
of a comprehensive Center mentioned in the proposed Sec. 656.21(b)(4).
Proposed Sec. 656.22(b)(4) would address the relevant faculty,
scholars, instructors, and other academic personnel that support
educational programs at the applicant institution, but Sec.
656.21(b)(4) would require comprehensive Center applicants to
demonstrate the existence of a critical mass of expertise relevant to
the proposed Center's area of focus. In addition to addressing
definitional characteristics from the statute, this criterion would
also allow applicants to demonstrate that faculty have the capacity to
support graduate and professional programs rather than only
undergraduate programs.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(c) and 656.22(c) would add a criterion
for ``Impact of existing activities and resources.'' This proposed
criterion would combine elements of the selection criteria found in the
current Sec. Sec. 656.21(c), 656.21(e), and 656.21(i) for
comprehensive Centers, and Sec. Sec. 656.22(c), 656.22(e), and
656.22(i) for undergraduate Centers. The proposed criterion would
require applicants to describe how the applicants' educational
resources, efforts to engage various audiences, and educational
programs demonstrate that proposed centers make distinctive
contributions at the national level. Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(3)
and 656.22(c)(3) would continue to affirm that effective outreach and
engagement involving a wide range of audiences and partners are crucial
elements of the NRC. The proposed wording both streamlines the
discussion of outreach efforts and allows applicants to describe other
audiences. The proposed change would also emphasize that the existence
of outreach and engagement programs alone does not speak to their
efficacy. Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(4) and 656.22(c)(4) would
closely resemble the current Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(3)-(4) and
656.22(c)(3)-(4) by requiring applicants to respond to a criterion
mandated by the statute that addresses how applicants currently address
national needs for language and area studies expertise and knowledge
identified by Federal agencies, as well as other needs identified in
other sectors, including the education, business, and non-profit
sectors.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(1)-(2) would further clarify that
comprehensive Centers and affiliated individuals are expected to make
significant contributions to research and the provision of access to
educational resources that enable different types of research. As
employed in proposed Sec. 656.21(c)(1), we would interpret the
``national interest'' as broadly as possible to reflect the statute's
interest in supporting the security, stability, and economic vitality
of the United States, which includes the recognition that the
production of advanced research about world regions is critical for
ensuring that IHEs remain globally competitive within the global
landscape of higher education.
Consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2), proposed Sec. 656.21(c)(2)
would require comprehensive Centers to maintain ``important'' library
collections that would support the comprehensive Center's activities.
The proposed sub-criterion would specify that important library
collections include distinctive holdings that do not duplicate
materials widely available at other libraries, especially in light of
the increasing importance of digital access to scholarly monographs and
journals. Including the concept of ``access'' would make clear
[[Page 13524]]
that important collections are collections that are used by
researchers, including those not based at institutions of higher
education. Whether through the digitization of special collections or
access policies, applicants would be required to describe the degree to
which they make their collections available to others through various
means. Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.22(c)(1)-(2) would adapt these sub-
criteria to the distinct purpose of undergraduate Centers. This
proposed sub-criterion would remove the explicit consideration of
financial support for acquisition and library staff in current
Sec. Sec. 656.21(e)(1) and 656.22(e)(1), as well as direct
consideration of cooperative arrangements and databases in current
656.21(e)(2) and 656.22(e)(2). Although financial support is critical
for the long-term viability of academic libraries, such support is less
directly relevant for reviewers to determine the resources and
expertise that will be available during the grant's performance period.
The proposed sub-criteria would directly address library staffing
rather than financial support for staffing. Online databases and other
electronic materials are now commonplace in library collections, so
they do not need to be singled out as resources apart from a library's
normal collections. Moreover, the concept of an ``important'' library
collection is sufficiently broad that applicants for comprehensive
Centers may include any or all of these considerations in their
response to the proposed sub-criterion.
In contrast to proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)-(c) and 656.22(a)-(c)
that would focus on the applicants' current operations, proposed
Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)-(g) and 656.22(d)-(g) would require applicants to
describe their goals and plans for the grant period. Proposed
Sec. Sec. 656.21(d) and 656.22(d) would add a criterion for ``Project
design and rationale.'' This criterion would require applicants to
explain the overall vision for their projects and how their projects
are intended to meet the purposes of the NRC Program. This proposed
addition would complement the criteria proposed in Sec. Sec. 656.21(e)
and 656.22(e), which would address plans for activities and budgets,
and the criteria in proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(f) and 656.22(f), which
would address plans for project evaluation. Proposed Sec. Sec.
656.21(e)-(f) and 656.22(e)-(f) would emphasize that applicants must
select activities, allocate funds, and determine whether intended
project outcomes are attained in an intentional manner that is
responsive to institutional contexts and aligned with project goals.
The changes also would emphasize in this context that evaluation plans
must be simple, cost-effective, and focused on high level outcomes
rather than on tracking expenses or the implementation of individual
activities.
These three interrelated criteria would require applicants to
explain the intended outcomes for their projects, specific activities
and how they would align with the intended outcomes, and the evaluative
process that would help determine whether those intended outcomes were
being realized during the grant period. These criteria would enable
peer reviewers to determine the excellence of the proposed project in
relation to the current state described in proposed Sec. Sec.
656.21(a)-(c) and 656.22(a)-(c).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)(4) and 656.22(d)(4) would require
applicants to explain how diverse perspectives and a wide range of
views required by the statute would be represented in the project. This
sub-criterion would allow expert peer reviewers to evaluate how
effectively the proposed project would address a statutory mandate that
project activities reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of
views on world regions and international affairs and generate debate on
world regions and international affairs. This approach would complement
the current requirement for applicants to submit an assurance on this
topic by allowing applicants to receive expert feedback, which they
currently do not. The proposed sub-criterion also would provide
additional guidance to applicants that the discussion of diverse
perspectives should be directly relevant to the proposed project rather
than a general statement about institutional practices. This approach
would ensure that high scoring applicants would be likely to meet the
statutory expectation at the time of application and throughout the
grant's performance period.
The proposed selection criteria would also eliminate certain
elements of the current selection criteria not addressed above. Current
Sec. Sec. 656.21(h)(3) and 656.22(h)(3) specifically include the
extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other
institutions' study abroad and summer language programs. The proposed
selection criteria would not include identical provisions. Because
proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(b)and 656.22(b) require applicants to
address the extent to which an institution makes high-quality training
in modern foreign language and area or international studies available,
however, the proposed regulations would not preclude discussing student
access to other institutions' study abroad and summer language programs
in this context. The proposed regulations would eliminate current
Sec. Sec. 656.21(j) and 656.22(j), ``Degree to which priorities are
served,'' as the Secretary may award points for competitive preference
priorities without including such a category in the selection criteria.
See generally 34 CFR 75.105(c). Although the Department has never
interpreted the regulations to allow it, moreover, removing priorities
from the selection criteria also avoids the appearance of allowing
applicants to receive points twice for responding to the same
competitive preference priority (once through the selection criteria,
and once for responding to the priority). This proposed change would
not alter the current approach to competitive preference priorities.
Current Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(2) and 656.22(c)(2) require that an
applicant's evaluation plan produce quantifiable, outcome-measure-
oriented data. The proposed regulations would eliminate this explicit
requirement. Instead, proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(f) and 656.22(f) would
require applicants to describe a more holistic approach to evaluation,
including the qualifications of the evaluator(s) and an evaluation plan
that is appropriate for the grant project. Although many performance-
related data are quantifiable, not all data collected for evaluation
purposes are quantifiable. Qualitative data may be a component of an
evaluation plan. The proposed regulations also would include a
requirement to describe plans to obtain performance feedback and
periodic assessment of progress toward meeting intended outcomes, so
the proposed approach incorporates an interest in project outcomes. The
proposed regulations would provide greater flexibility to applicants
when designing an evaluation plan.
By separating the award of special project grants from the award of
center grants, the addition of proposed Sec. 656.23 would streamline
the Department's implementation of the statute. Proposed Sec. 656.23
would be very similar to proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)-(f) and
656.22(d)-(f), which focus on the purpose and activities related to an
applicants' project, but because only Centers selected for funding
under the NRC Program would be eligible for these additional grants,
applicants would not be required to submit duplicative information
about the current state of the applicant institution. Proposed Sec.
656.23 would make clear that additional special purpose grants are
intended to allow applicants to achieve a significant outcome in
addition to the
[[Page 13525]]
funding typically provided under the NRC Program and cannot be used to
supplant funding for other project activities.
Proposed Sec. 656.24 would rephrase the current list of priorities
in Sec. 656.23, add three new priorities, and drop a priority. The
rephrasing of priorities in current Sec. 656.23 would enhance clarity
by removing redundant or unnecessary words. Given the importance of the
instruction of modern foreign languages, especially less commonly
taught languages in the program statute, adding a priority related to
the teaching of specific modern foreign languages would improve the
Secretary's ability to meet the program purpose by prioritizing
instruction in certain languages, if the need arises. The new priority
related to the ``consultation on national need'' would allow the
Secretary to select a priority that explicitly reflects the results of
the consultation with Federal agencies. While such consultation is
required by the statute, this proposed change would enable the
Secretary to easily identify a priority for a specific language or
world region as aligned with the national needs recognized by Federal
agencies, which would better integrate the required consultation and
the NRC Program. The proposed regulation would drop a priority related
to the specific focus of a center but would add a similar priority that
addresses both the geographically defined focus and topical focus of a
center. This priority would align with the requirement that all centers
declare a geographic area of focus incorporated into these proposed
regulations. The combination of geographic focus and topical focus
would ensure the Secretary is able to appropriately prioritize awards,
if needed.
Section 656.30 What activities and costs are allowable?
Statute: Section 602(a)(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(2)) states
that grants made under this section may pay all or part of the cost of
establishing or operating a relevant center or program.
Current Regulation: Sections 656.3, 656.5, and 656.30 explain
allowable costs and activities for the NRC Program.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 656.30 would combine current
Sec. 656.30 with current Sec. Sec. 656.3 and 656.5 to make one
comprehensive allowable costs and activities section. Proposed Sec.
656.30 would reorder the list of examples of allowable activities
included in the current regulation and would add several new
limitations on costs, including a prohibition on compensation for
project directors and a limitation on personnel costs for individuals
who are not directly engaged in the instruction of less commonly taught
languages. The proposed regulation would also add an explicit pre-
approval requirement for costs associated with international travel.
The proposed regulation would preserve the current requirement that
grant funds may not supplant funds normally used by applicants to
support the same activities.
Reasons: Proposed Sec. 656.30 would reduce repetition and
streamline the description of allowable costs and activities by
combining three sections into one comprehensive section. In keeping
with the statutory direction in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(2), NRC Program
grants may pay all or part of the cost associated with establishing or
operating a center, so the NRC Program's primary limitations on
allowable activities would remain the scope of funded applications and
whether individual activities serve the purpose of establishing or
operating a center. The listed activities and their associated costs
would continue to serve as examples of activities and costs typically
deemed allowed for the NRC Program. The list would highlight activities
that are closely aligned with the program purpose.
The proposed changes would revise and reorder the combined list of
activities to enhance clarity by highlighting activities that directly
serve the program purpose. In addition, the proposed regulation would
add to the list of allowable activities support for instructors of the
less commonly taught languages, opportunities for the study of the less
commonly taught languages, dissemination of information about the
Center's area of focus to various audiences through domestic outreach
activities, efforts to increase language proficiency for students in
STEM fields, establishing and maintaining linkages with overseas
institutions of higher education, and conducting projects that
encourage and prepare students to seek employment relevant to the
Center's area of focus in areas of national need. The proposed
regulation would also expand the scope of listed activities related to
libraries to include the maintenance of library collection and efforts
to enhance access to library collections. Centers frequently engage in
many of these activities.
The proposed regulation would preserve the current requirement that
grant funds may not supplant funds normally used by applicants to
support the same activities, to ensure that grant funds are a catalyst
for institutional investment in a critical area of the national
postsecondary education infrastructure. The proposed regulation also
would add several new limitations on costs to limit or prohibit costs
that would be unlikely to serve the purposes of the NRC Program, based
upon substantial experience in administering the program. These
limitations would include a prohibition on compensation for project
directors and a limitation on personnel costs for individuals who are
not directly engaged in the instruction of less commonly taught
languages. The proposed regulation would also add an explicit pre-
approval requirement for costs associated with international travel.
Experience with administration of the NRC Program has demonstrated that
these limitations and the pre-approval requirement are prudent and
necessary to ensure that grant funds are being spent effectively in
service of the program's purpose. These limitations also follow
longstanding guidance and technical assistance to the grantee
community.
Part 657
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122.
Current Regulations: Part 657 contains the regulations for the FLAS
Fellowships Program.
Proposed Regulation: The Department proposes to replace part 657 in
its entirety due to the number of necessary changes and the
accompanying need to reorganize these parts to improve readability.
Sections that address similar topics would be combined, and duplicative
or contradictory paragraphs would be eliminated.
Reasons: These changes would allow the Department to substantially
revise the selection criteria and application processes for the FLAS
Fellowships Program, introduce new definitions, revise or eliminate
existing definitions, align the regulations with the statute, and
reduce the burden associated with the FLAS Fellowships Program.
Section 657.1 What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program?
Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1))
authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions of higher
education or consortia of such institutions for the purpose of paying
stipends to individuals undergoing advanced training in centers or
programs approved by the Secretary.
Current Regulation: Section 657.1 describes the FLAS Fellowships
Program as a program that provides IHEs with allocations of fellowships
that are awarded to eligible students.
[[Page 13526]]
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.1 would clarify that the
FLAS Fellowships Program is an institutional program that enables
eligible IHEs to compete for an allocation of fellowships that are
distributed to eligible students on a competitive basis.
Reasons: The proposed change would reduce confusion by eliminating
details about student eligibility criteria from this section, because
these eligibility criteria would be addressed at greater length
elsewhere. The proposed change would also highlight the advanced nature
of the interdisciplinary training that the statute envisions for the
fellows, to satisfy the statutory purpose of creating a pool of trained
personnel and experts in foreign language and area studies to meet
national needs identified by Federal agencies, as well as other needs
identified in other sectors, including the education, business, and
nonprofit sectors. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1121(b)(1)(B). The ongoing and
sustained cultivation of expertise through training provided by IHEs
across the full range of world areas and modern foreign languages helps
ensure the security, stability, and economic vitality of the United
States. The fellowships also provide invaluable support for instruction
and training in area studies and foreign language at the IHEs that
receive allocations of fellowships.
Institutional Eligibility and the Requirements for an Allocation of
Fellowships (Sec. Sec. 657.2 and 657.3)
Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1))
authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions of higher
education or consortia of such institutions for the purpose of paying
stipends to individuals undergoing advanced training in any center or
program approved by the Secretary.
Current Regulation: Section 657.2 describes the eligibility
criteria for IHEs.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.2 would clarify that only
IHEs or a consortium of IHEs are eligible for an allocation of
fellowships under the FLAS program. Proposed Sec. 657.3 would address
all additional instructional and administrative requirements for
grantees under this program.
Reasons: The proposed regulation would align the institutional
eligibility determination in proposed Sec. 657.2 with the statute by
clearly stating that all IHEs are eligible to apply for an allocation
of fellowships. Proposed Sec. 657.3 would provide a more concise list
of instructional and administrative requirements for institutional
grantees under the FLAS Fellowships Program than the current Sec.
657.2. Proposed Sec. 657.3(b) would also improve transparency by
clearly linking the administration of the allocation of fellowships
with the applicants' application materials. As in the current
regulations, proposed Sec. 657.3 specifies that applicants would not
need to be grantees under the NRC Program to be eligible to receive an
allocation of fellowships under the FLAS Fellowships Program, even
though the programs are complementary.
Section 657.4 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
Statute: Section 602(b)(2) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(2))
describes the FLAS Fellowships Program eligibility criteria.
Current Regulation: Section 657.3 describes the fellowship
eligibility criteria for students who are enrolled or have been
accepted for enrollment at an IHE that receives an allocation of
fellowships. Section 657.30 describes limitations on the award of
fellowships, including with respect to student eligibility.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.4 would retain existing
requirements for citizenship and residency, enrollment status, academic
merit, and modern foreign language study in a program using or
developing performance goals. The proposed regulation would add
descriptions of the training that three distinct populations of
students must be able to receive during the fellowship period to be
eligible to receive fellowships. The proposed changes would clarify
that a student's educational program is a relevant criterion for
determining a student's eligibility for a FLAS Fellowship.
Reasons: The proposed regulation would reduce ambiguity and the
potential for contradictory interpretations of student eligibility
criteria. Adding descriptions of allowable types of training also would
emphasize that student eligibility is tied to the availability of
appropriate opportunities for instruction and training.
The proposed changes would tie fellowship eligibility to a
student's educational program to better align the program design with
the program's statutory purpose of promoting expertise in foreign
language and area studies. In this context, a student's educational
program refers to their degree program, inclusive of major
requirements, minor requirements, general education requirements,
certificate requirements, and other curricular requirements. The
holistic emphasis on educational programs rather than solely focusing
on individual courses during a specific academic term would ensure that
fellowships are supporting the structured and intentional training of
experts within appropriate curricular frameworks.
The proposed changes would allow a grantee to identify any
educational program as eligible if the educational program combines the
study of modern foreign languages with area studies or the study of
other fields from an international perspective. The diversity of
curricular options at grantee IHEs would ensure the cultivation of
relevant expertise in a wide variety of fields. The proposed regulation
would recognize that well-designed curricula leading to recognized
educational credentials are the most appropriate means for cultivating
the types of expertise in modern foreign languages and area studies
contemplated by the statute. We believe that the proposed regulation
would encourage IHEs to innovate and establish appropriate
interdisciplinary curricular options for students to study modern
foreign languages and area studies in all fields of study, including
STEM and professional fields. Formal curricular options discourage ad
hoc arrangements that benefit one or only a small number of students.
Making educational programs a fellowship eligibility criterion also
would mitigate risk to the Department because it would require IHEs to
demonstrate commitment to provide relevant courses, faculty, and
educational resources for fellows at the grantee institution throughout
the performance period.
Section 657.5 What is the amount of a fellowship?
Statute: Section 602(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1)) authorizes the
Secretary to makes grants to IHEs or consortia of such institutions for
the purpose of paying stipends to eligible students.
Current Regulation: Section 657.31 describes the amount and
components of a fellowship.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed changes would relocate the
description of the fellowship amount to subpart A to improve the
organization of the program regulations. Proposed Sec. 657.5 would
combine the current subsistence payment for the fellow (stipend) with
the institutional payment for tuition and fees into a single stipend
amount that would go to the fellow. This change would make a single
stipend payment the major component of fellowships awarded under the
FLAS Fellowships Program. Following current practice, the stipend
amount for the academic year
[[Page 13527]]
and summer as well as graduate and undergraduate fellowships authorized
under this program would be announced in the Federal Register.
Reasons: Given the program's longstanding prohibition on
administrative costs, the elimination of the institutional payment
would eliminate the substantial burden for grantees associated with
tracking and processing institutional payments as distinct from the
stipend payments. The proposed change also acknowledges that
institutional definitions of mandatory fees vary greatly, which
complicates the Department's ability to set an appropriate
institutional payment amount. The proposed change would also establish
predictable unit costs for fellowships, which would promote the
efficient allocation and administration of fellowships. The proposed
change would improve the ability of grantees to increase the number of
meritorious students who apply for a fellowship because of the
potential for larger stipend payments, which would enhance the
program's ability to meet its statutory purpose. The Department
anticipates that grantees already contributing to costs above the
institutional payment amount, to match commitments made to similar
students at the same IHE, will continue to do so.
The proposed change would not alter the Department's expectation
that payments cover fellows' living expenses and the costs of advanced
training in modern foreign languages and area studies. The proposed
change would not affect the requirement that fellows remain in good
academic standing and make satisfactory progress during the fellowship
period or face potential termination of the fellowship. The proposed
change would make additional funds available directly to the fellow and
discourage IHEs from artificially increasing the institutional payment
by setting tuition and fee amounts greater than actual costs.
Increasing the amount of funds directly available to the fellow would
allow the fellow to defray costs for specialized materials and
experiences that support advanced training in modern foreign languages
and area studies that would fall outside the definition of tuition,
fees, or living expenses. The increased flexibility resulting from the
proposed change would make the FLAS Fellowships Program more comparable
to other Federal programs with similar goals, such as Boren
Scholarships and Boren Fellowships, which cover recipient expenses for
books, research materials, and other expenses apart from living
expenses, tuition, and fees.
Section 657.7 What definitions apply to this program?
Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the
Secretary to define terms necessary to make grants under the FLAS
Fellowships Program.
Current Regulation: Section 657.5 defines terms that apply to the
FLAS Fellowships Program.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.7 would add the definition
of ``stipend'' for the FLAS Fellowships Program. The proposed
regulation would adjust the terminology used in part 657 by replacing
the terms ``Center'' and ``program'' with the terms ``approved
Centers'' and ``approved programs.''
Reasons: The proposed changes would reduce ambiguity in part 657.
The proposed definition of ``stipend'' would reflect that the FLAS
fellowships typically would consist of a single payment to a fellow
rather than the current combination of a subsistence allowance paid to
the student (stipend) and a separate institutional payment intended to
cover the costs of tuition and fees. Adding this definition would
standardize the use of the term, eliminate redundant terminology, and
therefore improve the efficiency of program implementation. The
introduction of the terms ``approved Center'' and ``approved program''
would clearly distinguish centers and programs approved under the NRC
or FLAS Fellowships Programs from other centers and programs at IHEs.
Section 657.8 Severability
Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the
Secretary to define terms necessary to make grants under the NRC
Program.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not address
severability.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulation would add a
severability provision.
Reasons: The Department seeks to clarify its intent that, with
regard to severability, each of the regulations in part 657 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.
Application and Selection Processes (Sec. Sec. 657.10, 657.11, 657.12,
and 657.20)
Statute: Section 602(e) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires
institutions seeking a grant under this program to follow an
application process designed by the Secretary.
Current Regulation: Section 657.10 allows an applicant to submit a
combined application for the NRC and FLAS programs. Section 657.20
describes which selection criteria are used and how the Department
communicates the point values for the selection criteria.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed regulations would update the
application and selection processes. The proposed change would
eliminate the possibility of submitting to both the NRC and FLAS
Fellowships Program simultaneously (though applicants still could
continue to submit separate applications under each program). Proposed
Sec. 657.10 would affirm that the FLAS Fellowships Program follows the
Department's standard procedures for grant applications by directing
potential applicants to the application notice in the Federal Register
for guidance. Proposed Sec. 657.11 would clarify the assurances and
materials required in every application for the FLAS Fellowships
Program. Proposed Sec. 657.12 would reaffirm that individual students
apply for individual fellowships through IHEs that have received an
allocation of fellowships. Proposed Sec. 657.20 would add additional
information about the selection process.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would provide more accurate
guidance based on current program management practices. The NRC Program
and FLAS Fellowships Program have long been identified by separate
Assistance Listing Numbers, and applications for these programs have
been evaluated using program-specific selection criteria. The
Department began using <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> to receive applications for these two
programs for the fiscal year 2022 competition. In addition to the
substantive differences between the programs and the selection
criteria, <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> cannot accept one application for two programs
with individual Assistance Listing Numbers. Given these substantive
differences and technical limitations, removing the option for
simultaneous submission would improve the efficiency of program
administration. Proposed Sec. 657.10 affirms that the FLAS Fellowships
Program follows the Department's standard procedures for grant
applications by directing potential applicants to the application
notice in the Federal Register for guidance.
The additional information on assurances and required application
materials in proposed Sec. 657.11 would clarify statutory requirements
and
[[Page 13528]]
improve the efficiency of program administration. Section 602(e) of the
HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires the explanation of how grant funded
activities reflect diverse perspectives, as defined in the proposed
regulations, and how applicants will encourage government service in
areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education,
business, and non-profit sectors. The Department already has required
institutional applicants for the FLAS Fellowships Program to submit
these assurances for multiple competitions. The proposed regulation
would emphasize the importance of this requirement.
Proposed Sec. 657.12 makes minor adjustments to the description of
the student application process to make clear that individual students
must apply for a fellowship through institutional grantees under part
657. The proposed change would codify longstanding practices that
institutional grantees control the application and selection processes
for individual fellowships.
Proposed Sec. 657.20 would promote transparency and support
efficient program management by adding a more detailed description of
the selection process. Under proposed Sec. 657.20, experts in relevant
fields would review applications for an allocation of fellowships to
determine excellence based on the appropriate selection criteria.
Applications with similar areas of geographic focus would be grouped
together. Peer reviewers would score each application separately, and
then applications from each group would be selected for funding in rank
order within each group based on the peer reviewers' scores. If a lack
of funds prevented funding all highly ranked applications in each
group, the proposed regulation would permit the Department to consider
the degree to which applications were likely to serve any competition
priorities published in the application notice that were derived from
the ``consultation on areas of national need'' or that were related to
specific countries, world areas, or languages.
Variations on the peer review process described in the proposed
regulation have been included in the application notice for several
grant cycles, so the proposed regulation would reflect longstanding
practices. This added transparency also would benefit new applicants
that may be unfamiliar with the selection process and would affirm the
importance of supporting the study of world areas or languages
identified through the consultation process or priorities established
by the Secretary.
Selection Criteria and Program Priorities (Sec. Sec. 657.21 and
657.22)
Statute: Section 607(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1127(b)) requires the
Secretary to set selection criteria that will enable reviewers to make
a determination of excellence relative to the program's objectives.
This section also requires the Secretary to consider specific selection
criteria, such as the degree to which fellowships at IHEs address
national needs and generate information for and disseminate information
to the public.
Current Regulation: Section 657.21 describes the selection criteria
for comprehensive Centers. Section 656.22 describes the possible
funding priorities for the FLAS Fellowships program.
Proposed Regulation: The proposed changes to the selection criteria
would add clarity, eliminate redundancy, and reduce the burden on
applicants while improving alignment with the authorizing statute. The
current selection criteria are comprised of nine criteria and 22
specific sub-criteria, excluding specific sub-criteria describing the
competitive preference priorities for a specific competition. The
proposed changes would reduce the number of criteria to six without
modifying the total number of sub-criteria.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(a)-(c) would require applicants to describe
the current state of administrative operations, academic programs,
educational resources, and other relevant activities. Proposed
Sec. Sec. 657.21(d)-(f) would require applicants to describe their
goals and plans for the grant period.
Proposed Sec. 657.22 would rephrase the current list of priorities
in Sec. 657.22, add a new priority related to the use of stated
performance goals in language instruction, add a new priority related
to the ``consultation on areas of national need,'' add a priority
related to academic terms, and drop a priority related to specific
countries.
Reasons: The proposed revisions to the selection criteria are
designed to provide greater alignment with the FLAS Fellowships Program
statute. As described further below, the focus of proposed Sec.
657.21(a)-(c) on an applicant's current state of operations would help
us to select grantees that are most likely to meet the minimum
instructional and administrative requirements included in the statute
and these proposed regulations. Proposed Sec. 657.21(d)-(f) would
require applicants to address plans for the grant's performance period.
The proposed arrangement of selection criteria would streamline the
structure of the application narrative.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(a) would add a criterion for ``Scope,
personnel and operations.'' This proposed criterion would require
applicants to explain how the applicant meets the instructional and
administrative requirements detailed in proposed Sec. 657.3(a),
including, but not limited to, how the proposed allocation of
fellowships would be used to support area studies and language training
and instruction aligned with a geographically defined world area and
specific languages associated with that world area. This approach would
benefit applicants because we recognize that applicants may propose
novel or distinctive approaches grounded in research, so they would be
able to clearly explain the proposed allocation of fellowships to
reviewers and describe the rationale for it.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(a) also would combine elements of the
selection criteria found in the current Sec. 657.21(b) and 657.21(d).
The proposed criterion would continue to address oversight arrangements
and institutional commitment. Proposed Sec. Sec. 657.21(a)(3) would
specifically require consortia applicants to provide a rationale for
the formation of a consortium which would allow reviewers to evaluate
the administrative impact of the consortium agreement.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(a)(4) would require applicants to describe
financial, administrative, and other support specifically to support
administration of the allocation of FLAS fellowships rather than for
the entire relevant subject area as under current Sec. 657.21(d).
Reported amounts of financial support are subject to wide variation for
reasons unrelated to an institution's actual level of commitment. For
example, labor and other costs vary substantially by geographic
location within the United States. Financial support for students may
reflect an IHE's tuition rates, which vary widely across institutions.
For example, an institution that charges relatively modest tuition and
routinely waives all tuition and mandatory fees for students in an area
studies program may report a lower level of total financial support for
students under the current selection criteria than an institution that
charges high tuition and only waives a portion of tuition for a similar
population of students. The proposed change would allow reviewers to
evaluate institutional contributions that are directly relevant to the
administration of applicant's allocation of fellowships. The other
proposed selection criteria provide
[[Page 13529]]
alternative opportunities to demonstrate the effects of an
institution's financial support relevant to administration of the
proposed allocation of fellowships in terms of the availability and
quality of various educational resources, such as teaching staff,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, and student
support.
Grouping sub-criteria related to these topics into a single
category and clarifying that these sub-criteria refer specifically to
the administrative unit seeking an allocation of fellowships would help
ensure that the allocation of fellowships aligns with the program
purpose and that grantees have the necessary administrative capacity.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(b) would add a criterion for ``Quality of
curriculum and instruction'' that would combine elements of the
selection criteria found in current Sec. Sec. 657.21(f)-(h). The
proposed criteria would continue to address elements of curriculum
design, language instruction, and non-language area studies
instruction, but the proposed category would allow applicants to
address these elements in a more integrated manner, emphasizing how
these elements of academic excellence are closely interconnected.
Overall, the proposed changes would explicitly require applicants
to describe distinctive strengths in instruction and curriculum design,
so applicants would be able to highlight features of national
significance. Proposed Sec. 657.21(b)(1) would continue to emphasize
the degree to which intentionally interdisciplinary curriculum options
for students are indicators of excellence for the FLAS Fellowships
Program. Proposed Sec. 656.22(b)(3) would require applicants to
describe whether applicants integrate performance goals into language
instruction and the degree to which such goals, if they exist, are met
or are likely to be met by students. This sub-criterion resembles
current Sec. 657.21(g)(4) and responds more directly to the statutory
requirement that fellows enroll in instructional programs with stated
performance goals or in programs that are developing such performance
goals (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(2)(A)). This proposed sub-criterion also
acknowledges that the design, implementation, and ongoing improvement
of language instruction is an indicator of excellence. The proposed
sub-criteria also would eliminate the extent to which students enroll
in the study of language from explicit consideration as an indicator of
quality for an applicant's program of language instruction, which is
included in current Sec. 657.21(g)(1), and instead require applicants
to explain in proposed Sec. 657.21(b)(2) the frequency with which
relevant language courses at various level are offered. The proposed
focus on frequency will allow reviewers to more directly evaluate an
institution's capacity to offer relevant language instruction and
training.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 657.21(c) and 657.22(c) would add a criterion
for ``Quality of faculty and academic resources.'' This proposed
criterion would combine elements of the selection criteria found in the
current Sec. Sec. 657.21(c), 657.21(e), and 657.21(h). The proposed
criterion would require applicants to describe how the applicants'
educational resources and educational programs demonstrate that the
proposed allocation of fellowships would support high quality and
distinctive training opportunities for fellows. Proposed Sec. Sec.
657.21(c)(1)-(2) would further emphasize the need to employ highly
qualified faculty at IHEs receiving an allocation of fellowships.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(c)(2) would emphasize that IHEs receiving an
allocation of fellowships must be deeply committed to a fellow's future
success as demonstrated by the intentional provision of academic and
career advising specifically tailored to the strengths and experiences
of FLAS fellows. Such opportunities would potentially benefit all
students with international experiences and expertise.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(c)(3) would remind applicants that fellows
undergoing advanced training in modern foreign languages and area
studies must have access to appropriate educational resources,
especially suitable library collections and other research collections.
This proposed sub-criterion would remove the explicit consideration of
financial support for acquisition and library staff in current Sec.
657.21(e)(1), as well as direct consideration of cooperative
arrangements and databases in current Sec. 657.21(e)(2). Instead,
proposed Sec. 657.21(c)(3) requires applicants to describe library
staffing arrangements relevant to the proposed allocation of
fellowships. Although financial support is critical for the long-term
viability of academic libraries, such support is less directly relevant
for reviewers to determine the resources that will be available to
fellows during the grant's performance period. Online databases and
other electronic materials are now commonplace in library collections,
so they do not need to be singled out as resources apart from a
library's normal collections.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(c)(4) would emphasize the importance of
access to relevant research and study abroad opportunities for FLAS
fellows and require applicants to discuss the actual use of such
arrangements, which would indicate not only breadth of offerings but
also their ease of use and the institution's responsiveness to student
interests.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(d) would add a criterion for ``Project design
and rationale.'' This criterion would allow applicants to explain the
overall vision for their projects and how their projects are intended
to meet the purposes of the FLAS Fellowships Program. Current sub-
criteria addressing national needs and placement would be merged with
this criterion. Proposed Sec. 657.21(d)(1) would require applicants to
discuss how a proposed allocation of fellowships would fit with the
applicants' educational programs and resources. This sub-criterion
would encourage applicants to identify specific educational programs
and languages that are likely to be supported by the proposed
allocation of fellowships.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(d)(4) would require applicants to explain how
diverse perspectives and a wide range of views required by the statute
would be represented in the project. This sub-criterion would allow
expert reviewers to evaluate how effectively the proposed project would
address the statutory mandate that project activities reflect diverse
perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world
regions and international affairs. This approach would complement the
current requirement for applicants to submit an assurance on this topic
by allowing applicants to receive expert feedback, which they currently
do not. The proposed sub-criterion also would provide additional
guidance to applicants that the discussion of diverse perspectives
should be directly relevant to the proposed project rather than a
general statement about institutional practices. This approach would
ensure that high scoring applicants would be likely to meet the
statutory expectation at the time of application and throughout the
grant's performance period.
Proposed Sec. 657.21(e) would add a ``Project planning and
budget'' criterion that would replace current Sec. 657.21(a). This new
criterion would enhance transparency and facilitate the efficient
allocation of funding by inviting applicants to justify the amount of
the requested allocation of fellowships. This criterion complements
proposed Sec. 657.21(f), which would address plans for project
evaluation. These interrelated criteria would require applicants to
explain the intended outcomes for their projects, the anticipated
distribution of fellowships
[[Page 13530]]
and how they would align with the intended outcomes, and the evaluative
process that would help determine whether those intended outcomes were
being realized during the grant period. These criteria would allow
reviewers to determine the excellence of the proposed project in
relation to the current operations described in proposed Sec.
657.21(a)-(c).
The proposed selection criteria would also eliminate certain
elements of the current selection criteria not already addressed above.
Current Sec. 657.21(h)(3) specifically includes the extent to which
the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' study
abroad and summer language programs. The proposed selection criteria
would not include identical provisions. Proposed Sec. 657.21(b)(4)
would, however, require applicants to describe formal arrangements for
study to conduct research or study abroad relevant to the proposed
allocation of fellowships, and would not preclude discussing student
access to other institutions' study abroad and summer language programs
in this context. The proposed regulations would eliminate current Sec.
657.21(i), ``Degree to which priorities are served,'' as the Secretary
may award points for competitive preference priorities without
including such a category in the selection criteria. See generally 34
CFR 75.105(c). Although the Department has never interpreted the
regulations to allow it, moreover, removing priorities from the
selection criteria also avoids the appearance of allowing applicants to
receive points twice for responding to the same competitive preference
priority (once through the selection criteria, and once for responding
to the priority). This proposed change would not alter the current
approach to competitive preference priorities. Current Sec.
657.21(c)(2) requires that an applicant's evaluation plan produce
quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data. The proposed regulations
would eliminate this explicit requirement. Instead, proposed Sec.
657.21(f) would require applicants to describe a more holistic approach
to evaluation, including the qualifications of the evaluator(s) and an
evaluation plan that is appropriate for the grant project. Although
many performance-related data are quantifiable, not all data collected
for evaluation purposes are quantifiable. Qualitative data may be a
component of an evaluation plan. The proposed regulations also would
include a requirement to describe plans to obtain performance feedback
and periodic assessment of progress toward meeting intended outcomes,
so the proposed approach incorporates an interest in project outcomes.
The proposed regulations would provide greater flexibility to
applicants when designing an evaluation plan.
Proposed Sec. 657.22 would rephrase the list of priorities in
current Sec. 657.22, add three priorities, and drop a priority. The
new priority related to stated performance goals in language
instruction would reflect the statutory requirements for fellowships
and would allow the Secretary to more directly implement this provision
when awarding allocations of fellowships. The new priority related to
academic terms would allow the Secretary to prioritize academic year or
summer fellowships. As described in proposed Sec. 657.30(b), the
duration of a fellowship would be related to the types of study,
training, or research that are allowable for a fellow. The proposed
priority would allow the Secretary to, for example, prioritize
intensive language training during a summer term if the Secretary
recognized a specific national need for intensive language instruction.
The new priority related to the ``consultation on areas of national
need'' would allow the Secretary to select a priority that explicitly
reflects the results of the consultation with Federal agencies. While
such consultation is required by the statute, this proposed change
would enable the Secretary to easily identify a priority for a specific
language or world region as aligned with the national needs recognized
by Federal agencies, which would better integrate the required
consultation and the FLAS Fellowships Program. The proposed regulation
would drop a priority related to specific countries because the other
priorities would provide a sufficient degree of specificity to select
specific world regions in conjunction with specific languages and
specific topics of study.
Section 657.30 What are the limitations on fellowships and the use of
fellowship funds?
Statute: Section 602(b)-(d) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)-(d))
describe limitations on the use of fellowship funds and authorize the
Secretary to set relevant policies.
Current Regulation: Sections 657.30 and 657.33 describe limitations
on the use of fellowship funds.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.30 would consolidate two
current sections that discuss limitations on the use of fellowship
funds and clarify how funds may be used in frequently encountered
situations not currently addressed in part 657.
Reasons: The proposed changes would align the program with
developments in postsecondary education. The proposed changes would
address distance education in light of the increasing use of this
instruction modality and would emphasize that distance education may be
appropriate for satisfying the fellowship's course requirements. The
Secretary would have flexibility to approve distance education on a
case-by-case basis, which would allow consideration of various factors,
especially the extent to which the modality would benefit the fellow by
enhancing access to advanced training opportunities.
The proposed changes would rephrase and explain in detail the
duration of fellowships as well as providing more detail regarding
eligibility for the different types of fellowships. In particular, the
proposed changes would set forth requirements with regard to
dissertation research and dissertation writing fellowships, which were
left unstated in the current regulations. The proposed regulations
would clearly explain what is required for a student to receive one of
these fellowships, which would align the regulations with accepted
program management practices.
The proposed changes also introduce a provision regarding
internships. FLAS fellows sometimes find that it is useful to undertake
an internship in the course of their study. The proposed regulation
enables internships at the discretion of the Secretary. Also, the
proposed changes make explicit that FLAS grantees must follow the
procedures set forth in their applications when they select FLAS
fellows. Other accepted practices in the management of these grants are
also clearly stated in the proposed changes, including specific
requirements that apply to study outside the U.S., the conditions that
apply to acceptance of concurrent awards from other Federal agencies,
the conditions that apply to a transfer of FLAS funds to another
institution, and when FLAS funds may be used for undergraduate travel.
Finally, the proposed regulations clarify the policy regarding
fellowship vacancies. The proposed changes also would reinforce
longstanding program guidance that program administration costs cannot
be charged to grants providing an allocation of fellowships under the
FLAS Fellowships Program. Grantee IHEs are the beneficiaries of the
revenue generated by fellows' payments for tuition and fees, and the
selection process is intended to identify IHEs with sufficient
administrative capacity to administer an allocation of fellowships.
Additional payments for
[[Page 13531]]
administrative costs would reduce the funds available for fellowships
and run counter to the program purpose.
Section 657.33 What are the reporting requirements for grantee
institutions and for individual fellows who receive funds under this
program?
Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1))
authorizes the Secretary to makes grants to IHEs for the purpose of
paying stipends to eligible students. Additionally, 20 U.S.C. 1132-3
authorizes the Secretary to ``assess and ensure compliance with all the
conditions and terms of grants'' provided under title VI of the HEA.
Current Regulation: Current regulations do not address reporting
requirements.
Proposed Regulation: Proposed Sec. 657.33 would affirm that all
IHEs that receive an allocation of fellowships under this part and all
fellows who receive a fellowship under this part are required to abide
by all reporting requirements established for the FLAS Fellowships
Program.
Reasons: The current regulations do not address the issue of
reporting. The proposed changes would address grantee concerns by
providing sufficient authority for IHEs to require fellows to submit
all reports in a timely manner. This change would enable the Department
to improve the efficiency of program administration by promoting the
collection of complete and accurate records about fellows during the
fellowship period.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
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, as
amended by Executive Order 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
(as of 2023 but adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of 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 proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
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 (as amended by Executive Order 14094). 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.'' 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.''
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, territorial, or Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these 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 in NRC Program and FLAS
Fellowships Program applications as a result of revising the selection
criteria, so we foresee minimal impact on the Department's time and
cost of reviewing these applications.
Over the last four years, the amount of funding for the NRC Program
has ranged from approximately $23.7 to $29.3 million per year with 155
eligible grant applications received and reviewed in the most recent
competition. Of these applicants, 98 received grant awards in fiscal
year 2022, and an additional 15 of these applicants ultimately received
grant awards through funding down the slate in fiscal year 2023. Over
the same period, the amount of funding for the FLAS Fellowships Program
has remained stable at approximately $31.2 million per year, with 160
eligible grant applications received and reviewed in the most recent
competition. We awarded grants to 112 of these applications in fiscal
year 2022.
The number of applications for both programs has remained
relatively steady across recent competitions, but the number of grant
awards for the NRC Program has increased slightly after funding down
the slate. The Department expects the number of applications and grant
rewards to remain similar in future years.
[[Page 13532]]
The proposed changes to the selection criteria would require the
Department to develop new technical review forms. The proposed
regulations also would require the Department to update program
guidance and technical assistance materials for applicants, peer
reviewers, and grant recipients. The Department anticipates the costs
associated with these activities to be minimal, because we already
engage in an ongoing process to revise, update, and improve these
materials for each competition for these programs.
Similarly, any revisions to the selection criteria would have no
effect on current grant recipients under both programs. The Department
also believes the proposed revisions would have little net effect on
applicants. Applicants already develop new applications for each
competition in response to a Notice Inviting Applications that may
contain new competitive preference priorities or a new allocation of
points for the existing selection criteria. The proposed selection
criteria refer to similar types of data as the current selection
criteria. The Department foresees that the costs for applicants and
grant recipients that result from the proposed changes to the selection
criteria would be minimal.
The Department foresees that current grant recipients under the
FLAS Fellowships Program may incur minor costs associated with program
administration due to the revised program regulations. Although the
regulations would not make any major changes to the FLAS Fellowships
Program, the regulations would be expanded to address new issues by
codifying current guidance from the Department. As a result, grant
recipients would need to familiarize themselves with the new
regulations and update any references to the regulations that appear in
their documents developed to assist program administration, especially
in documents distributed to students and current and prospective
fellows.
The benefits of amending these regulations include (1) clarifying
statutory language, (2) redesigning the selection criteria to reduce
redundancy to improve the application process, and (3) updating the
current regulations to reflect current practices in program
administration and relevant fields of education. We anticipate that the
clarifications, reductions to the number of selection criteria, and
adjustments to administration will reduce the burden on applicants and
grant recipients for both the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program.
Alternatives Considered
The Department reviewed and assessed various alternatives to the
proposed regulations. The Department considered maintaining current
regulations and developing additional technical assistance and guidance
to address emerging topics in modern foreign language and area studies
education, especially distance education. The Department also
considered developing extensive new technical assistance and guidance
to explain the differences that exist among similar sections of the
regulations for both programs. The Department determined that revising
the regulations was the most efficient option to decrease
administrative burden and ensure that the programs fulfill their
statutory purposes.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
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 regulations clearly
stated?
(b) Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity?
(c) Do the format of the proposed regulations (use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
(d) Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we
divided them 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 regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
(f) What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 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 IHEs that would submit applications to the Department
under this program.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing
status, governing body, and population. The majority of entities to
which the Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply
are postsecondary institutions, however, which do not report such data
to the Department. As a result, for purposes of these proposed
regulations, the Department continues to define ``small entities'' by
reference to enrollment, to allow meaningful comparison of regulatory
impact across all types of higher education institutions. The
enrollment standard for small less-than-two-year institutions (below
associate degrees) is less than 750 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students
and for small institutions of at least two but less-than-4-years, and
4-year institutions, less than 1,000 FTE students.\1\ As a result of
discussions with the Small Business Administration, this is an update
from the standard used in some prior rules. Those prior rules applied
an enrollment standard for a small two-year institution of less than
500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students and for a small 4-year
institution, less than 1,000 FTE students.\2\ The Department consulted
with the Office of Advocacy for the SBA and the Office of Advocacy has
approved the revised alternative standard. The Department continues to
[[Page 13533]]
believe this approach most accurately reflects a common basis for
determining size categories that is linked to the provision of
educational services and that it captures a similar universe of small
entities as the SBA's revenue standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In regulations prior to 2016, the Department categorized
small businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined
``nonprofit 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 are independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 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.
\2\ In those prior rules, at least two but less-than-four-years
institutions were considered in the broader two-year category. In
this iteration, after consulting with the Office of Advocacy for the
SBA, we separate this group into its own category.
Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Type Small Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................ Public.................. 328 1,182 27.75
2-year................................ Private................. 182 199 91.46
2-year................................ Proprietary............. 1,777 1,952 91.03
4-year................................ Public.................. 56 747 7.50
4-year................................ Private................. 789 1,602 49.25
4-year................................ Proprietary............. 249 331 75.23
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. ........................ 3,381 6,013 56.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018-19 data reported to the Department.
As the table indicates, these proposed regulations would affect
institutions of higher education that meet the definition of small
entities. They would not have a significant economic impact on these
entities, however, 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.
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 656.21, 656.22, 656.23, and 657.21 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 current Application for the NRC and FLAS
Fellowships Programs (1840-0807). This information collection includes
application instructions and forms for the NRC Program (ALN Number
84.015A) and the FLAS Fellowships Program (ALN Number 84.015B),
authorized under title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (20 U.S.C. 1122).
The NRC Program provides grants to IHEs or consortia of IHEs to
establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate
foreign language and area or international studies centers. These
centers serve as centers of excellence for world language training and
teaching, research, and instruction in fields needed to provide full
understanding of areas, regions, or countries where the languages are
commonly used.
The FLAS Fellowships Program awards allocations of fellowships,
through institutions of higher education or consortia of institutions
of higher education, to meritorious students enrolled in programs that
offer performance-based instruction in world languages in combination
with area studies, international studies, or the international aspects
of professional studies.
Together, these programs respond to the ongoing national need for
individuals with expertise and competence in world languages and area
or international studies; advance national security by developing a
pipeline of highly proficient linguists and experts in critical world
regions; and contribute to developing a globally competent workforce
able to engage with a multilingual/multicultural clientele at home and
abroad.
Eligible institutions of higher education use the information
collection to submit applications to the Department of Education (ED)
to request funding in response to the competition announcement. After
grant applications are submitted, the Department determines the budget
and staff resources it needs to conduct the peer review of applications
and post award activities. External review panels use the information
to evaluate grant applications and to identify high-quality
applications. When developing funding slates, ED program officials
consider the evaluations from the expert review panels, in conjunction
with the NRC and FLAS legislative purposes and any Administration
priorities. ED program officials also use the collection to inform
strategic planning; to establish goals, performance measures and
objectives; to develop monitoring plans; or to align program assessment
standards with Department performance goals and initiatives.
Over many grant cycles, administering the NRC and FLAS grant
competitions using the current selection criteria has been unwieldy and
burdensome for both applicants and peer reviewers. The Secretary
proposes changes to the selection criteria to clarify selection
criteria, eliminate redundant criteria, reduce the burden on applicants
and peer reviewers, and improve alignment with the statute,
particularly with regard to comprehensive and undergraduate Centers.
The Secretary proposes reducing the comprehensive NRC selection
criteria from 10 criteria with 27 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24
sub-criteria; the undergraduate NRC
[[Page 13534]]
selection criteria from 10 criteria with 26 sub-criteria to six
criteria with 24 sub-criteria; and the FLAS selection criteria from
nine criteria with 22 sub-criteria to six criteria with 22 sub-
criteria. The proposed criteria include some new criteria for the NRC
Program, including a ``quality of existing academic programs''
criterion, and also for FLAS, including ``project design and
rationale'' and ``project planning and budget'' criteria.
ED's Office of Postsecondary Education, International and Foreign
Language Education (OPE-IFLE) has used the information received for the
current collection to develop technical assistance materials for
grantees, such as program administration manuals and technical
assistance Webinars, to inform the performance reporting requirements
for these programs, and to demonstrate the impact of these programs.
Competitions for these grants occur once every four years. The data
in the table is an estimate of the time it takes for respondents to
complete official forms, develop the application narrative and budget,
and submit completed applications through the <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> system.
The NRC application (1840-0807) would be affected by the proposed
changes to the NRC selection criteria (Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22, and
656.23), which require changes on the application package and technical
review forms. This information collection would no longer address
aspects of the FLAS program. The proposed changes to the NRC selection
criteria would clarify interpretations of statutory language and
redesign the selection criteria. The proposed regulations would remove
ambiguity and redundancy in the selection criteria and definitions of
key terms, improve the application process, and align the
administration of the programs with the developments in modern foreign
languages and area studies education.
The FLAS application (1840-NEW) would be affected by the proposed
changes to the FLAS selection criteria (Sec. Sec. 657.21), which
require changes on the application package and technical review forms.
This new information collection would reflect the separation of the
applications for the NRC and FLAS programs. The proposed changes to the
FLAS selection criteria would clarify interpretations of statutory
language and redesign the selection criteria. The proposed regulations
would remove ambiguity and redundancy in the selection criteria and
definitions of key terms, improve the application process, and align
the administration of the programs with the developments in modern
foreign languages and area studies education.
Previously, both applications were combined into one information
collection for the Application for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships
Programs (1840-0807). The proposed regulations would necessitate fully
separating the information collection into two distinct information
collections. Accordingly, the burdens associated with these information
collections are derived from the burden associated with the current
version of the Application for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs
(1840-0807). Taken together, proposed selection criteria would reduce
the hour burden per response by one hour, from 27 to 26. When
multiplied by 165 respondents, this change would result in a decrease
in Total Annual Burden hours from 4,455 to 4,290. The Total Annual
Costs would decrease from $334,125 to $321,750.
The NRC and FLAS programs compete only once every four years. The
application packages are cleared with OMB once every three years. For
every three-year clearance period, the competitions are run once.
Because of the separation of the two information collections, the Total
Annual Burden Hours and Total Annual Costs are halved, as demonstrated
in the tables below. For both the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships
Program, 26 hours to complete both applications is reduced to 13 hours
each. When multiplied by 165 respondents this yields Total Annual
Burden Hours of 2,145 and Total Annual Costs of $160,875. Averaged over
three years, the Total Annual Burden Hours are reduced to 715 and the
Total Annual Costs are reduced to $52,301 for each program.
NRC Program (1840-0807)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number of Number of Average respondent Total annual Total annual
Affected type respondents responses burden hours average hourly burden hours costs
per response wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions, private or non-profit............................... 165 165 13 $75 2,145 $160,875
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAS Fellowships Program (1840-NEW)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number of Number of Average respondent Total annual Total annual
Affected type respondents responses burden hours average hourly burden hours costs
per response wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions, private or non-profit............................... 165 165 13 $75 2,145 $160,875
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC application (1840-0807) would be affected by the proposed
changes to the NRC selection criteria (Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22, and
656.23), which would require changes on the application package and
technical review forms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information OMB control No. and
Regulatory section collection estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22, These proposed 1840-0807. The
656.23, and 657.21. regulatory number of
provisions would respondents would
require changing remain constant at
the application 165 and the number
package and of total burden
technical review hours for the
forms to reflect application would
the modified be reduced to 2,145
selection criteria when averaged over
for this program. three years. The
averaged total cost
would be reduced to
$160,875.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13535]]
The FLAS application (1840-NEW) would be affected by the proposed
changes to the FLAS selection criteria (Sec. 657.21), which would
require changes on the application package and technical review forms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information OMB control No. and
Regulatory section collection estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 657.21............... These proposed 1840-NEW. The number
regulatory of respondents
provisions would would remain
require changing constant at 165 and
the application the number of total
package and burden hours for
technical review the application
forms to reflect would be reduced to
the modified 2,145 when averaged
selection criteria over three years.
for this program. The averaged total
cost would be
reduced to
$160,875.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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>.
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--
<bullet> Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
<bullet> Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
<bullet> Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
<bullet> Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB must 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 March 25, 2024. 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 655
Colleges and universities, Cultural exchange programs, Educational
research, Educational study programs, Grant programs--education,
Scholarships and fellowships.
34 CFR Part 656
Colleges and universities, Cultural exchange programs, Educational
research, Educational study programs, Grant programs--education,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 657
Colleges and universities, Cultural exchange programs, Educational
study programs, Grant programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scholarships and fellowships.
Miguel A. Cardona,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 655--INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 655 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121-1130b and 1132-1132-7, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 655.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 655.1 Which programs do these regulations govern?
* * * * *
(a) The National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
Area Studies and the Foreign Language and
[[Page 13536]]
Area Studies Fellowships Program (section 602 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended);
* * * * *
Sec. 655.3 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 655.3 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (a) and (d).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (c) as paragraphs (a) through
(b).
0
4. Revise Sec. 655.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 655.4 What definitions apply to the International Education
Programs?
(a) The following terms used in this part and 34 CFR parts 656,
657, 658, 660, 661, and 669 are defined in 2 CFR part 200, subpart A,
34 CFR 77.1, 34 CFR 600.2, or 34 CFR 668.2:
Academic engagement
Acquisition
Applicant
Application
Award
Budget
Clock hour
Contract
Correspondence course
Credit hour
Distance education
Educational program
EDGAR
Enrolled
Equipment
Facilities
Fiscal year
Full-time student
Graduate or professional student
Grant
Grantee
Grant period
Half-time student
Local educational agency
National level
Nonprofit
Project
Project period
Private
Public
Regular student
Secretary
State educational agency
Supplies
Undergraduate student
(b) The following definitions apply to International Education
Programs:
Area studies means a program of comprehensive study of the aspects
of a world area's society or societies, including study of history,
culture, economy, politics, international relations, and languages.
Areas of national need means the various needs in the government,
education, business, and nonprofit sectors for expertise in foreign
language, area, and international studies identified by the Secretary
as significant for maintaining or improving the security, stability,
and economic vitality of the United States.
Consortium of institutions of higher education means a group of
institutions of higher education that have entered into a cooperative
arrangement for the purpose of carrying out a common objective, or a
public or private nonprofit agency, organization, or institution
designated or created by a group of institutions of higher education
for the purpose of carrying out a common objective on their behalf.
Consultation on areas of national need means the process that
allows the head officials of a wide range of Federal agencies to
consult with the Secretary and provide recommendations regarding
national needs for expertise in foreign languages and world areas that
the Secretary may take into account when identifying areas of national
need.
Diverse perspectives means a variety of viewpoints relevant to
understanding global or international issues in context, especially
those derived from scholarly research or sustained professional
activities and community engagement abroad, and relevant to building
multi-faceted knowledge and expertise in area studies, international
studies, and the international aspects of professional studies,
including issues related to world regions, foreign languages, and
international affairs, among stakeholders.
Educational program abroad means a program of study, internship, or
service learning outside the United States that is part of a foreign
language or other international curriculum at the undergraduate or
graduate education level.
Institution of higher education means an institution that meets the
definition in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, as well as an institution that meets the requirements of
section 101(a) except that--
(1) It is not located in the United States; and
(2) It applies for assistance under title VI of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, in consortia with institutions that
meet the definition in section 101(a).
Intensive language instruction means instruction of at least five
contact hours per week during the academic year or the equivalent of a
full academic year of language instruction during the summer.
0
5. Revise Sec. 655.30 to read as follows:
Sec. 655.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
The Secretary evaluates applications for International Education
Programs using the criteria described in one or more of the following:
(a) The general criteria in Sec. 655.31.
(b) The specific criteria, as applicable, in subpart C of 34 CFR
parts 656 and 657, or subpart D of 34 CFR parts 658, 660, 661, and 669.
0
6. Amend Sec. 655.31 by revising paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 655.31 What general selection criteria does the Secretary use?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Facilities (including but not limited to language laboratory,
museums, or library) that the applicant plans to use are adequate; and
* * * * *
PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE
AND AREA STUDIES OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
0
7. Revise part 656 to read as follows:
PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE
AND AREA STUDIES
Subpart A--General
Sec.
656.1 What is the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program?
656.2 What entities are eligible to receive a grant?
656.3 What defines a comprehensive or undergraduate National
Resource Center?
656.4 For what special purposes may a Center receive an additional
grant under this part?
656.5 What regulations apply to this program?
656.6 What definitions apply to this program?
656.7 Severability.
Subpart B--How does an eligible institution apply for a grant?
656.10 How does an institution submit a grant application?
656.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant
include in an application?
Subpart C--How does the Secretary make a grant?
656.20 How does the Secretary select applications for funding?
656.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for a comprehensive Center?
656.22 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for an undergraduate Center?
[[Page 13537]]
656.23 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
application for an additional special purpose grant to a Center?
656.24 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
Subpart D--What conditions must be met by a grantee?
656.30 What activities and costs are allowable?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121, 1122, 1127, and 1132 unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 656.1 What is the purpose of the National Resource Centers
Program?
Under the National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language
and Areas Studies (National Resource Centers Program), the Secretary
awards grants to institutions of higher education and consortia of
institutions to establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and
undergraduate Centers that act cooperatively as national resources
for--
(a) Teaching of modern foreign languages, especially less commonly
taught languages;
(b) Instruction in fields of study needed to provide full
understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which such languages
are commonly used;
(c) Research and training in international studies and the
international and foreign language aspects of professional and other
fields of study; and
(d) Instruction and research on issues in world affairs that
concern one or more countries.
Sec. 656.2 What entities are eligible to receive a grant?
(a) An institution of higher education or a consortium of
institutions of higher education is eligible to receive a grant under
this part as either a comprehensive Center or undergraduate Center.
(b) An institution of higher education or a consortium of
institutions of higher education that has received a grant under this
part as either a comprehensive Center or undergraduate Center is
eligible to receive an additional grant under this part for special
purposes related to library collections, outreach, and summer
institutes, as described in Sec. 656.4.
Sec. 656.3 What defines a comprehensive or undergraduate National
Resource Center?
(a) A Center's area of focus must be aligned with all of the
following:
(1) A geographic world area that serves as the focus of research,
teaching, training, and instruction.
(2) Opportunities available at the institution for teaching,
training, research, and instruction in specific languages, countries,
regions, societies, or other units of analysis relevant to the chosen
geographic world area.
(b) A comprehensive Center is an administrative unit of an eligible
institution of higher education that independently or through
collaboration with other administrative units--
(1) Provides intensive modern foreign language training, especially
for less commonly taught languages, in the Center's area of focus;
(2) Contributes significantly to the national interest in advanced
research and scholarship in the Center's area of focus;
(3) Employs a critical mass of scholars in diverse disciplines
related to the Center's area of focus;
(4) Maintains important library collections related to the Center's
area of focus;
(5) Makes training available in language and area studies in the
Center's area of focus, to graduate, postgraduate, and undergraduate
students;
(6) Addresses national needs for modern foreign language and area
studies expertise and knowledge, including through, but not limited to,
the placement of students into postgraduate employment, education, or
training in areas of need; and
(7) Disseminates information about the Center's area of focus to
audiences in the United States.
(c) An undergraduate Center independently or through collaboration
with other administrative units--
(1) Teaches modern foreign languages, especially less commonly
taught languages, related to the Center's area of focus;
(2) Prepares undergraduate students to matriculate into advanced
modern foreign language and area studies programs and professional
school programs;
(3) Incorporates substantial content related to the Center's area
of focus into baccalaureate degree programs;
(4) Engages in research and curriculum development designed to
broaden knowledge and expertise related to the Center's area of focus;
(5) Employs faculty with strong language, area, and international
studies credentials related to the Center's area of focus;
(6) Maintains library holdings sufficient to support high-quality
training and instruction in the Center's area of focus for
undergraduate students;
(7) Makes training available predominantly to undergraduate
students in support of the objectives of an undergraduate institution;
(8) Addresses national needs for language and area studies
expertise and knowledge, including through, but not limited to, the
placement of undergraduate students into postgraduate employment,
education, or training in areas of need; and
(9) Disseminates information about the Center's area of focus to
audiences in the United States.
Sec. 656.4 For what special purposes may a Center receive an
additional grant under this part?
The Secretary may make additional grants to Centers for one or more
of the following purposes:
(a) Linkage or outreach between foreign language, area studies, and
other international fields and professional schools and colleges.
(b) Linkage or outreach with 2- and 4-year colleges and
universities.
(c) Linkage or outreach between or among--
(1) Postsecondary programs or departments in foreign language, area
studies, or other international fields; and
(2) State educational agencies or local educational agencies.
(d) Partnerships or programs of linkage and outreach with
departments or agencies of Federal and State governments, including
Federal or State scholarship programs for students in related areas.
(e) Linkage or outreach with the news media, business,
professional, or trade associations.
(f) Summer institutes in area studies, foreign language, or other
international fields designed to carry out the activities in paragraphs
(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section.
(g) Maintenance of important library collections.
Sec. 656.5 What regulations apply to this program?
The following regulations apply to this program:
(a) The regulations in 34 CFR part 655.
(b) The regulations in this part 656.
Sec. 656.6 What definitions apply to this program?
The following definitions apply to this part:
(a) The definitions in 34 CFR part 655.
(b) The following definitions, unless otherwise specified:
Critical mass of scholars means a concentration of modern foreign
language and area studies faculty, researchers, and other similar
personnel associated with a Center who collectively make significant
contributions in a field of area studies
[[Page 13538]]
because of their expertise and are distinguished by their training in
many different academic disciplines in addition to their active
engagement in interdisciplinary initiatives related to the Center's
area of focus. The following are examples of other factors that may be
considered in determining whether there is a critical mass of scholars:
(i) Whether instruction in many foreign languages is offered.
(ii) Whether specialized area studies or language instruction is
regularly offered.
(iii) The number of graduate student research projects
(dissertations, theses, or equivalents) supervised.
(iv) The degree of collaboration with international partners.
(v) Participation in professional activities or consultations with
partners outside academia.
(vi) Professional awards and honors.
(vii) Roles in professional associations.
(viii) Activities funded by external grants.
(ix) The number of scholars relative to all similarly qualified
individuals in the United States.
Institution means an institution of higher education, as defined in
34 CFR part 655. References to an institution include all institutions
of higher education that operate as a consortium under this part.
National Resource Center (Center) means an administrative unit
within an institution of higher education that is a grantee under this
part that coordinates educational initiatives related to an area of
focus as described in Sec. 656.3(a) at that institution or for a
consortium of institutions through direct access to faculty, staff,
administrators, students, library collections and other research
collections, and other educational resources that support research,
training, and instruction in various academic disciplines, professional
fields, and languages.
Sec. 656.7 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 other person, act, or practice
will not be affected thereby.
Subpart B--How does an eligible institution apply for a grant?
Sec. 656.10 How does an institution submit a grant application?
The application notice published in the Federal Register explains
how to apply for a new grant under this part.
Sec. 656.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant
include in an application?
(a) Each institution of higher education, including each member of
a consortium, applying for a grant under this part must provide all of
the following:
(1) An explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will
reflect diverse perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range
of views and generate debate on world regions and international
affairs.
(2) A description of how the applicant will encourage government
service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary, as
well as in areas of need in the education, business, and nonprofit
sectors.
(b) An applicant must submit an Applicant Profile Form, as
described in the application package.
(c) Each consortium applying for an award under this part must
submit a group agreement (consortium agreement) that addresses the
required elements of 34 CFR 75.128 and describes a rationale for the
formation of the consortium.
Subpart C--How does the Secretary make a grant?
Sec. 656.20 How does the Secretary select applications for funding?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application for a comprehensive
Center under the criteria contained in Sec. 656.21, and for an
undergraduate Center under the criteria contained in Sec. 656.22. The
Secretary evaluates applications for additional special purpose grants
to Centers under the criteria contained in Sec. 656.23.
(b) The Secretary informs applicants of the maximum possible score
for each criterion in the application package or in a notice published
in the Federal Register.
(c) The Secretary makes grant awards using a peer review process.
Applications that share the same or similar area of focus, as declared
by each applicant under Sec. 656.3(a), are grouped together for
purposes of review. Each application is reviewed for excellence based
on the applicable criteria referenced in paragraph (a) of this section.
Applications are then ranked within each area of focus.
(d) The Secretary may determine a minimum total score required to
demonstrate a sufficient degree of excellence to qualify for a grant
under this part.
(e) If insufficient money is available to fund all applications
demonstrating a sufficient degree of excellence as determined under
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section, the Secretary considers
the degree to which priorities derived from the consultation on areas
of national need or established under the provisions of Sec. 656.24
and relating to specific countries, world areas, or languages are
served when selecting applications for funding and determining the
amount of a grant.
Sec. 656.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for a comprehensive Center?
The Secretary evaluates an application for a comprehensive Center
on the basis of the criteria in this section.
(a) Center scope, personnel, and operations. The Secretary reviews
each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the proposed Center's area of focus meets
the requirements in Sec. 656.3(a).
(2) The extent to which the Project Director and other staff are
qualified to administer the proposed Center, including the degree to
which they engage in ongoing professional development activities
relevant to their roles at the proposed Center.
(3) The adequacy of governance and oversight arrangements for the
proposed Center, including the extent to which faculty from a variety
of academic units participate in administration and oversee outreach
activities, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
(4) The extent to which the institution provides or will provide
financial, administrative, and other support to the operation of the
proposed Center at a level sufficient to enable the administration of
the proposed project and coordination of educational initiatives in the
proposed Center's area of focus.
(5) The extent to which the proposed Center, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices for Center staff, encourages
applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that
have been traditionally underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age or disability.
(b) Quality of existing academic programs. The Secretary reviews
each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the institution makes high-quality
training, especially integrated interdisciplinary training in modern
foreign languages and area studies, appropriate to the applicant's area
of focus, available in the curricula for graduate, professional, and
[[Page 13539]]
undergraduate students in a wide variety of educational programs.
(2) The extent to which the institution routinely provides language
instruction, including intensive language instruction, relevant to the
applicant's area of focus at multiple levels, as well as the degree to
which these offerings represent distinctive commitments to depth or
breadth.
(3) The extent to which qualified experts at the institution
provide modern foreign language instruction in the applicant's area of
focus, as well as the degree to which this instruction utilizes stated
performance goals for functional foreign language use and the degree to
which stated performance goals are met or are likely to be met by
students.
(4) The extent to which the institution employs a critical mass of
scholars in the applicant's area of focus, including the degree to
which the institution employs enough qualified tenured and tenure-track
faculty with teaching and advising responsibilities to enable the
applicant to carry out interdisciplinary instructional and training
programs supported by sufficient depth and breadth of course offerings
in the applicant's area of focus.
(c) Impact of existing activities and resources. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the applicant, affiliated faculty, and
institutional partners contribute significantly to the national
interest in advanced research and scholarship related to the
applicant's area of focus.
(2) The extent to which the institution's library holdings (print
and non-print, physical and digital, English and foreign language) and
other research collections are important library collections in the
applicant's area of focus that support advanced training and research,
including the degree to which holdings are made available to
researchers throughout the United States, the degree to which
collections include unique or rare resources, and the degree to which
the collections are supported by experts in the applicant's area of
focus.
(3) The extent to which the applicant, including affiliated faculty
and institutional partners, generates information about the applicant's
area of focus, disseminates this information to various audiences in
the United States, and effectively engages those audiences through
sustained outreach activities at the regional and national levels that
respond to the diverse needs of, for example, elementary and secondary
schools, State educational agencies, postsecondary institutions,
nonprofit organizations, businesses, the media, and Federal agencies.
(4) The extent to which the applicant's activities address national
needs related to language and area studies expertise and knowledge,
including, but not limited to, the applicant's record in placing
students into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas
of national need related to language and area studies knowledge.
(d) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the outcomes of the proposed project are
clearly specified, possible to achieve within the project period, and
address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or
opportunities related to the Center's area of focus, the purpose of the
National Resource Centers Program described in Sec. 656.1, and the
comprehensive type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(b).
(2) The extent to which the project is likely to contribute to
meeting national needs related to language and area studies expertise
and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by outcomes and other
stated efforts related to increasing the number of students that go
into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas of
national need.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
institutional capacity in the Center's area of focus and sustain
results beyond the project period.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will reflect diverse
perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range of views and
generate debate on world regions and international affairs.
(e) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately
described relative to their contribution to project outcomes.
(2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of
the National Resource Centers program described in Sec. 656.1, the
comprehensive type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(b), and the
proposed project's outcomes.
(3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project
period.
(4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(f) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator(s).
Sec. 656.22 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for an undergraduate Center?
The Secretary evaluates an application for an undergraduate Center
on the basis of the criteria in this section.
(a) Center scope, personnel, and operations. The Secretary reviews
each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the proposed Center's area of focus meets
the requirements in Sec. 656.3(a).
(2) The extent to which the Project Director and other staff are
qualified to administer the proposed Center, including the degree to
which they engage in ongoing professional development activities
relevant to their roles at the proposed Center.
(3) The adequacy of governance and oversight arrangements for the
proposed Center, including the extent to which faculty from a variety
of academic units participate in administration and oversee outreach
activities, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
(4) The extent to which the institution provides or will provide
financial, administrative, and other support to the operation of the
proposed Center at a level sufficient to enable the administration of
the proposed project and coordination of educational initiatives in the
proposed Center's area of focus.
(5) The extent to which the proposed Center, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices for Center staff, encourages
applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that
have been traditionally underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age or disability.
(b) Quality of existing academic programs. The Secretary reviews
each
[[Page 13540]]
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the institution makes high-quality
training, especially integrated interdisciplinary training in modern
foreign language and area or international studies, appropriate to the
applicant's area of focus, available in educational programs
predominantly for undergraduate students in support of the objectives
of the undergraduate institution.
(2) The extent to which the institution routinely provides language
instruction relevant to the applicant's area of focus, as well as the
degree to which these offerings represent distinctive commitments to
depth or breadth of coverage.
(3) The extent to which qualified experts at the institution
provide modern foreign language instruction in the applicant's area of
focus, as well as the degree to which this instruction utilizes stated
performance goals for functional foreign language use and the degree to
which stated performance goals are met or are likely to be met by
students.
(4) The extent to which the institution employs faculty with strong
language, area, and international studies credentials related to the
applicant's area of focus, including the degree to which the
institution employs enough qualified tenured and tenure-track faculty
with teaching and advising responsibilities, to enable the applicant to
carry out instructional and training programs supported by sufficient
depth and breadth of course offerings predominantly for undergraduate
students in the applicant's area of focus.
(c) Impact of existing activities and resources. The Secretary
reviews each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the applicant predominantly prepares
undergraduate students to matriculate into advanced language and area
studies programs and professional school programs, especially through
curriculum design, requirements for student research or study abroad
opportunities, support for relevant internship or other co-curricular
opportunities, or specialized advising.
(2) The extent to which the institution's library holdings (print
and non-print, physical and digital, English and foreign language),
other research collections, and staffing predominantly support
undergraduate training in the applicant's area of focus through the
provision of basic reference works, journals, and works in translation.
(3) The extent to which the applicant, including affiliated faculty
and institutional partners, generate information about the applicant's
area of focus, disseminate this information to various audiences in the
United States, and effectively engage those audiences through sustained
outreach activities at the regional and national levels that respond to
the diverse needs of, for example, elementary and secondary schools,
State educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, nonprofit
organizations, businesses, the media, and Federal agencies.
(4) The extent to which the applicant's activities address national
needs related to language and area studies expertise and knowledge,
including, but not limited to, the applicant's record in placing
undergraduate students into post-graduate employment, education, or
training in areas of national need related to language and area studies
knowledge.
(d) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the outcomes of the proposed project are
clearly specified, possible to achieve within the project period, and
address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or
opportunities related to the Center's area of focus, the purpose of the
National Resource Centers program described in Sec. 656.1, and the
undergraduate type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(c).
(2) The extent to which the project is likely to contribute to
meeting national needs related to language and area studies expertise
and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by outcomes and other
stated efforts related to increasing the number of undergraduate
students that go into post-graduate employment, education, or training
in areas of national need.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
institutional capacity in the Center's area of focus and sustain
results beyond the project period.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project will reflect diverse
perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range of views and
generate debate on world regions and international affairs.
(e) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately
described relative to their contribution to project outcomes.
(2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of
the National Resource Centers program as described in Sec. 656.1, the
undergraduate type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(c), and the
proposed project's outcomes.
(3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project
period.
(4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(f) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator(s).
Sec. 656.23 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for an additional special purpose grant to a
Center?
The Secretary evaluates an application for a special purpose grant
on the basis of one or more of the criteria in this section.
(a) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the project aligns with the Center's
approved area of focus under Sec. 656.3(a) and proposes at least one
type of activity contained in Sec. 656.4(a)-(g).
(2) The extent to which the outcomes of the proposed project are
clearly specified, possible to achieve within the project period, and
address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or
opportunities related the Center's area of focus, the purpose of the
National Resource Centers program described in Sec. 656.1, and the
appropriate type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(b)-(c).
(3) The extent to which the project is likely to contribute to
meeting national needs related to language and area studies knowledge
or expertise.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
institutional capacity and sustain results beyond the project period.
(b) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately
described
[[Page 13541]]
relative to their contribution to project outcomes.
(2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of
the National Resource Centers program as described in Sec. 656.1, the
appropriate type of Center described in Sec. 656.3(b)-(c), and the
proposed project's intended outcomes.
(3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project
period.
(4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives,
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(c) Key personnel and project operations. The Secretary reviews
each application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which project personnel are qualified to oversee
and carry out the proposed project.
(2) The adequacy of staffing, governance, and oversight
arrangements, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
(d) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator(s).
Sec. 656.24 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
(a) The Secretary may select one or more of the following funding
priorities:
(1) Specific world areas, countries, or societies.
(2) Instruction of specific modern foreign languages.
(3) Modern foreign language instruction at a specific level or
degree of intensity, such as intermediate or advanced language
instruction, or instruction at an intensity of 10 contact hours or more
per week.
(4) Specific areas of national need for expertise in foreign
languages and world areas derived from the consultation with Federal
agencies on areas of national need.
(5) Specific area of focus, such as a world area or a portion of a
world area, e.g., a single country or society, in addition to a
specific topic, e.g., economic cooperation, cybersecurity, energy,
climate change, translation, genocide prevention, or migration.
(b) The Secretary may select one or more of the activities listed
in Sec. 656.4 or Sec. 656.30(a) as a funding priority.
(c) The Secretary announces any priorities in the application
notice published in the Federal Register.
Subpart D--What conditions must be met by a grantee?
Sec. 656.30 What activities and costs are allowable?
(a) Allowable activities and costs. Except as provided under
paragraph (b) of this section, a grant awarded under this part may be
used to pay all or part of the cost of establishing, strengthening, or
operating a comprehensive or undergraduate Center including, but not
limited to, the cost of the following:
(1) Supporting instructors of the less commonly taught languages.
(2) Creating, expanding, or improving opportunities for the formal
study of the less commonly taught languages related to the Center's
area of focus.
(3) Creating or operating summer institutes in the United States or
abroad designed to provide modern foreign language and area training in
the Center's area of focus.
(4) Cooperating with other Centers to conduct projects that address
issues of world, regional, cross-regional, international, or global
importance.
(5) Bringing visiting scholars and faculty to the Center to teach,
conduct research, or participate in conferences or workshops.
(6) Disseminating information about the Center's area of focus to
various audiences in the United States through domestic outreach
activities involving, for example, elementary and secondary schools,
postsecondary institutions, businesses, and the media.
(7) Funding library acquisitions, the maintenance of library
collections, or efforts to enhance access to library collections.
(8) Establishing and maintaining linkages with overseas
institutions of higher education and other organizations that may
contribute to the teaching and research of the Center's area of focus.
(9) Creating, obtaining, modifying, or improving access to teaching
and research materials.
(10) Creating, expanding, or improving activities or teaching
materials that are intended to increase modern foreign language
proficiency among students in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics fields.
(11) Conducting projects that encourage and prepare students to
seek employment relevant to the Center's area of focus in areas of
national need.
(12) Planning or developing curriculum.
(13) Engaging in professional development of the Center's faculty
and staff.
(14) Funding salaries and travel for faculty and staff.
(b) Limitations. The following are limitations on allowable
activities and costs:
(1) Equipment costs exceeding 10 percent of the grant are not
allowable.
(2) Undergraduate student travel is only allowable if the costs are
pre-approved by the Secretary and the travel is made in conjunction
with a formal program of supervised study in the Center's area of
focus.
(3) Grant funds may not be used to supplant funds normally used by
grantees for purposes of this part.
(4) Personnel and related costs associated with compensation for
the Project Director are not allowable.
(5) Personnel costs and other costs related to the compensation of
individuals exceeding 50 percent of a full time equivalent for any
individual not directly engaged in the instruction of a less commonly
taught language are not allowable.
(6) Costs for international travel are only allowable if a Center
has obtained pre-approval from the Secretary.
(7) Activities must be relevant to the Center's area of focus and
the type of Center.
PART 657--FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM
0
8. Revise part 657 to read as follows:
PART 657--FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM
Subpart A--General
Sec.
657.1 What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program?
657.2 What entities are eligible to receive an allocation of
fellowships?
657.3 What are the instructional and administrative requirements for
an allocation of fellowships?
657.4 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
657.5 What is the amount of a fellowship?
657.6 What regulations apply to this program?
657.7 What definitions apply to this program?
[[Page 13542]]
657.8 Severability.
Subpart B--How does an eligible institution or student apply?
657.10 How does an institution submit a grant application?
657.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant
institution include in an application?
657.12 How does a student apply for a fellowship?
Subpart C--How does the secretary make a grant?
657.20 How does the Secretary select institutional applications for
funding?
657.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an
institutional application for an allocation of fellowships?
657.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
Subpart D--What conditions must be met by institutional grantees and
fellows?
657.30 What are the limitations on fellowships and the use of
fellowship funds?
657.31 What is the payment procedure for fellowships?
657.32 Under what circumstances must an institution terminate a
fellowship?
657.33 What are the reporting requirements for grantee institutions
and for individual fellows who receive funds under this program?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122 and 1132-3, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 657.1 What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program?
Under the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program,
the Secretary provides allocations of fellowships to Centers and other
administrative units at eligible institutions of higher education that
award the fellowships on a competitive basis to undergraduate or
graduate students who are undergoing advanced training in modern
foreign languages and area studies.
Sec. 657.2 What entities are eligible to receive an allocation of
fellowships?
The Secretary awards an allocation of fellowships (grant) to an
institution of higher education or to a consortium of institutions of
higher education.
Sec. 657.3 What are the instructional and administrative requirements
for an allocation of fellowships?
(a) An allocation of fellowships must support area studies and
language instruction that aligns with--
(1) A geographic world area that serves as the focus of training
and instruction;
(2) Languages specific to the world area of focus; and
(3) Existing programs or proposed instructional programs that will
be developed and implemented during the grant period.
(b) An allocation of fellowships must be administered according to
the institution's written plan for distributing fellowships and
allowances to eligible fellows for training and instruction during the
academic year or summer, provided that--
(1) The fellowship types are described in the budget narrative of
an application selected for funding under this part; or
(2) The Secretary has approved any proposed changes to an approved
Center or Program's plan.
Sec. 657.4 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
A student must satisfy all of the following criteria during the
fellowship period to be eligible to receive a fellowship from an
approved Center or Program:
(a) The student is a--
(1) Citizen or national of the United States; or
(2) Permanent resident of the United States.
(b) The student is accepted for enrollment, is enrolled, or will
continue to be enrolled in the institution receiving an allocation of
fellowships.
(c) The student is pursuing an educational program that--
(1) Includes instruction or a demonstration of proficiency in a
modern foreign language related to the allocation of fellowships; and
(2) Includes instruction or, for graduate students, supervised
research related to the allocation of fellowships in--
(i) Area studies; or
(ii) The international aspects of professional fields and other
fields of study, including but not limited to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields.
(d) The student demonstrates--
(1) Commitment to the study of a world area relevant to the
allocation of fellowships; and
(2) Potential for high academic achievement based on such indices
as grade point average, class ranking, or similar measures that the
institution may determine.
(e) The student is engaged in modern foreign language training or
instruction in a language--
(1) That is relevant to the student's educational program, as
described in paragraph (c) of this section, as well as the allocation
of fellowships; and
(2) For which the institution or program has developed or is
developing performance goals for foreign language use, and in the case
of summer programs has received approval from the Secretary.
(f) The student must engage in the type of training appropriate to
their degree status:
(1) Undergraduate students must engage in the study of a less
commonly taught language at the intermediate or advanced level.
(2) Non-dissertation or predissertation level graduate students
must--
(i) Engage in the study of a mod
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 22, 2024.
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.