Rule2024-18856
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
August 27, 2024
Effective
September 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) amends 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. These regulations clarify interpretations of statutory language, redesign the selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon program management experience. These regulations 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68738-68768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18856]
[[Page 68737]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 166
August 27, 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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 68738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department) amends 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.
These regulations clarify interpretations of statutory language,
redesign the selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon
program management experience. These regulations 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.
DATES: This rule is effective September 26, 2024 except for the
regulations amending parts 656 (instruction 8) and 657 (instruction 9),
which are effective on August 15, 2025.
Applicability date: Parts 656 and 657 apply to all applications
submitted and all new awards made under these parts for the NRC Program
and FLAS Fellowships Program after August 15, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cwiek, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-1947. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c7d7ccc4cb8bc6d2ccc0cee5c0c18bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6d4c4dfd7d898d5c1dfd3ddf6d3d298d1d9c0">[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:
Purpose of this Regulatory Action: The regulations for the NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program were last amended 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 amend
parts 655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) detailing proposed
changes earlier this year (89 FR 13516).
These final regulations incorporate several significant related
changes to the proposed regulations contained in the NPRM. We also made
several minor technical and editorial changes in these final
regulations. We describe these changes in more detail in the Analysis
of Comments and Changes section below. Below is a brief overview of
significant related changes to these final regulations compared to the
NPRM.
Program purposes. We added a new section in part 655 that describes
the purposes of the International Education Programs, including the NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program, authorized by title VI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The final regulations
for the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program now refer to these
broader purposes of the International Education Programs.
Undergraduate centers. We added a cost limitation for undergraduate
NRCs that requires projects and project activities to predominantly
benefit undergraduate teaching and learning. Other changes more closely
align selection criteria with the expectation that undergraduate NRCs
make a distinctive contribution by preparing undergraduate students to
matriculate into advanced language and area studies programs and
professional language school programs.
Fellowship payments. We maintained the current structure of
fellowship payments for the FLAS Fellowships Program, meaning that
fellowships will continue to consist of an institutional payment and a
stipend payment in addition to any permitted allowances.
Educational programs. We substantially revised the educational
program eligibility criterion for the FLAS Fellowships Program. The
educational program eligibility requirement will not apply to summer
fellowships. In addition, these final regulations allow students in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and
professional fields to satisfy this eligibility requirement during the
academic year through a combination of academic advising and
coursework, even if their educational programs do not ordinarily
include or require modern foreign language study or area studies
coursework.
Institutional responsibilities. We added a new section in part 657
that describes the responsibilities of institutions that receive an
allocation of fellowships under the FLAS Fellowships Program. This
section enumerates existing responsibilities of institutions receiving
funding under that part without adding additional obligations.
Employment practices. We eliminated consideration of employment
practices from the selection criteria for the NRC Program.
Required assurances. We added a new assurance for both the NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program addressing employment practices
and institutional travel policies. These assurances are a required
component of applications to these programs.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, the
Department received 113 comments on the proposed regulations. We
address those comments in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
below.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
An analysis of the public comments received and the changes to the
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows. We group issues
according to subject. We discuss other substantive issues under the
sections of the regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not
address minor, non-substantive changes (such as renumbering paragraphs,
adding a word, or typographical errors). Additionally, we do not
address recommended changes that the statute does not authorize the
Secretary to make or comments pertaining to operational processes. We
generally do not address comments pertaining to issues that were not
within the scope of the NPRM.
Purposes of the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter noted the proposed regulations adequately
address the mission of the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program
through the addition of new definitions. However, the commenter
suggested addressing the mission or purpose at greater length in
Sec. Sec. 656.1 and 657.1, noting that such an addition would help
applicants and evaluators understand the fundamental purpose of the
[[Page 68739]]
programs, leading to better applications and evaluations.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the programs serve the
security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States.
Indeed, Congress made a finding that, ``The security, stability, and
economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend
upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world
regions, foreign languages, and international affairs, as well as upon
a strong research base in these areas.'' \1\ We agree the regulations
should provide greater clarity on how the purposes of the various
programs authorized under title VI of the HEA apply to the NRC Program
and the FLAS Fellowships Program. The final regulations address this
matter by adding a new Sec. 655.5 that incorporates the statutory
purposes of the International Education Programs; specifies how the
purposes apply to these programs, including the NRC Program and the
FLAS Fellowships Program; and summarizes the Department's obligation to
coordinate these Federal programs. We have provided further
clarification of the statutory program purposes that apply to the NRC
Program and the FLAS Fellowships program in Sec. Sec. 656.1 and 657.1,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We added Sec. 655.5, which addresses the purposes of the
programs authorized by part A of title VI of the HEA. We also added new
Sec. Sec. 656.1(b) and 657.1(b) that refer to the new Sec. 655.5.
Geographic Area of Focus Requirement for the NRC Program and the FLAS
Fellowships Program
Comments: Ten commenters expressed disagreement with the proposed
requirement of a geographic focus for NRC and FLAS grants. The
commenters concluded that, by eliminating an international category
that does not take into account a geographic area of focus for the NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program, the programs would lose the
distinctive perspective provided by an exclusively international focus
and adversely affect international studies programs, which benefit from
funding under these programs. One commenter specifically described
international NRCs as especially nimble in their ability to respond to
emerging crises and community needs. Furthermore, commenters explained
how current global and international studies NRCs work collaboratively
to support education on important global issues. One commenter argued
that the proposal to eliminate an international focus runs counter to
the program's intent by forcing a focus on individual regions in
isolation, rather than encouraging the development of cross-regional
and cross-national comprehensive and comparative expertise. Another
commenter said that this change would significantly reduce
collaboration among, and the leveraged funding of activities by, NRCs
at the same institution, other institutions, and across national
networks of area studies centers. According to this commenter,
international centers do not excel in specific, clearly defined
geographic areas, because they are global in scope. It would be much
more difficult for them to compete for grants in a world region
category with other area studies centers. One commenter contended that
requiring geographic focus would essentially end international studies,
including critical research on cybersecurity, public health,
immigration, and climate change from an international perspective. One
commenter noted that any effort to increase capacity is impractical
because NRCs do not directly control various decisions related to
resources on campuses. Five commenters supported the geographic focus
requirement. One lauded the change because it may help to ensure that
all centers are planning cohesive and well thought out programs that
tie global issues to the region of focus, while another agreed with the
importance of grounding thematic or ``international'' centers
geographically and linguistically, while allowing for spatial
configurations that reflect dynamic global flows of people, goods, and
ideas.
Discussion: For the reasons we stated in the NPRM, we believe that
a geographic focus requirement is supported under the statute and will
help ensure that we can distribute funds in a manner consistent with
the consultation on areas of national need, which necessarily generates
recommendations related to specific language and geographically defined
world areas rather than themes or topics in international studies.
We are committed to administering a program with sufficient
flexibility such that we can select grantees and allocate funds in a
manner that most effectively implements the purposes of these programs.
Although a commenter noted that NRCs without a defined area of
geographic focus are particularly nimble in responses to emerging
crises and community needs, this characteristic is not unique to one
category of NRCs. One way to interpret this responsiveness is the
ability to provide unanticipated programming and to shift grant funds
to new project activities with relative ease as conditions in the world
change. NRCs with a geographic focus would have such flexibility under
the standard procedures for the revision of budget and program plans in
2 CFR 200.308. For example, if an armed conflict arises, if the
conflict is relevant to a Center, it may request approval from the
Department to reallocate funds to support related activities. We work
with all grantees to maximize the extent to which areas of national
need are met, but these needs tend to be articulated in terms of
specific languages and geographic world areas, which supports a
geographic focus requirement. We remain committed to an efficient and
effective distribution of funds across and within these programs.
We do not agree that this requirement will mean the loss of
international perspective. Area studies, as defined in 20 U.S.C.
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. Our view of the
relationship between area studies and international studies aligns with
the larger program goals of 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B), as described in
the NPRM. That is, even with a geographical focus, Centers must still
engage in all the specified activities to meet the program's purpose,
including support for international studies. Centering a geographic
world area also will 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).
Under the final regulations, Centers will 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. This approach is not incompatible
with alternative approaches to defining a world area through linguistic
or cultural frameworks. Some of the programs' current categories
reflect, in part,
[[Page 68740]]
linguistic and cultural affinities that have been spatialized to the
point of being normalized as a world area. Such categories are not
timeless and are subject to modification as scholarly, political,
administrative, and other understandings change, particularly through
attention to minoritized groups that tend to straddle boundaries
between these areas. Likewise, nothing in the regulations precludes the
creation of alternative configurations of space that overlap, replace,
or fundamentally change other categories defined in geographic terms.
For example, Lusophone communities in Africa, Sufi communities in
Southeast Asia, and Japanese diaspora communities in South America are
possible geographic areas of focus that are neither so general as to
define the entire world as a region, nor so conventional that they
refer to a single traditional world area. Applications that propose a
geographic area of focus that spans more than one world area meet the
geographic focus requirement. However, we may need to use certain world
area categories for administrative purposes, such as the implementation
of program priorities or grants administration. Consequently,
applicants to these programs may need to use these categories as a
shorthand for describing their geographic area of focus, including foci
that span multiple world area categories. The selection criteria are
sufficiently flexible that applicants will have the opportunity to
explain the rationale for the chosen focus or foci and describe the
alignment of that focus or those foci with resources and proposed
activities.
We do not believe that this requirement will imperil international
studies programs. These grants are intended to stimulate specific types
of activity. Under the statute, all Centers must perform four
functions: modern language instruction, area studies, international
studies, and research and teaching on global issues. Highlighting these
expectations strengthens the program's overall emphasis on
international studies and global issues. These functions also reinforce
how the existence and accessibility of high-quality instruction in Less
Commonly Taught Languages at all levels is vital to area studies and
modern foreign language education in the United States. Teaching and
learning the world's languages are foundational elements of the NRC and
FLAS Fellowships Programs. These programs continue to address the
national need for expertise in these languages originally identified in
title VI of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that created
these programs. Sustaining and expanding high-quality instruction in a
wide variety of these languages at institutions of higher education
(IHEs) in the United States contributes to national security and
economic prosperity. The commitment to area studies in these programs
ensures that the cultivation of expertise in local, regional,
international, and global contexts accompanies and reinforces the
growth of proficiency in at least one world language. Critically, these
programs also support the development of proficiency in multiple world
languages, including the Less Commonly Taught Languages that are rarely
or never routinely taught at IHEs in the United States, to support
nuanced understanding of complex global issues in the past, present,
and future. Many of the Less Commonly Taught Languages are underserved
by emerging translation technologies because these technologies rely on
a large and accessible corpus of training materials. Human expertise in
languages and the local context in which these languages are used are a
critical resource.
The inherent flexibility of grants under these programs, even with
the new requirements, will allow funded grant projects to continue to
support efforts to integrate area studies with international, global,
or macro-level perspectives. As commenters suggested, current Centers
with an international thematic focus with without a geographical focus
may struggle to implement project activities that increase capacity
precisely because they are unable to coordinate all relevant resources
at an IHE. Commenters did not suggest that Centers with a geographic
focus face the same type of challenge, despite facing the same
expectation to balance area studies and international studies
approaches. We believe the geographic focus requirement will help
ensure the effective stewardship of Federal funds by improving the
alignment of project activities with the program purposes. Furthermore,
nothing precludes an applicant with a general global or international
focus from applying for a grant that proposes to support a more
narrowly defined project with a geographical area of focus. Such
applicants might be well-positioned to propose projects informed by
global or international approaches that avoid any perceived pitfalls
associated with a geographic focus.
These grants are intended to stimulate specific types of activity
in furtherance of the program's purposes. Some administrative units may
rely on grants for their existence. Many do not. The same can be said
for curricula and the resources that support them more broadly at
institutions. While these grants may enable certain project activities,
many grantee institutions have made substantial investments in these
fields that are much larger than would be possible by grants under
these programs alone. We interpret this as a sign of success. Under
these final regulations, institutions may continue to sustain and
support these initiatives. However, to meet the statutory requirement
that all Centers support area and international studies, institutions
may need to rethink their approach to international studies to promote
such a synthesis. Commenters have pointed out that many global and
international Centers cooperate with area studies Centers and that
other centers already draw upon area studies expertise at their
institutions. Similarly, many of the academic programs, such as
undergraduate international studies programs, combine language and area
studies along with more thematic global and international elements.
These types of practices and educational programs demonstrate the
complementarity of area studies and international studies.
Finally, commenters described how Centers without a geographic area
of focus frequently serve a coordination function that links multiple
Centers or connects external parties to specialized resources, such as
Centers with a geographic focus. We appreciate learning about the
multitude of institutional arrangements that exist among current
grantees, but we conclude these arrangements are products of specific
institutional factors and local circumstances rather than an intended
outcome of the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program. Grantees
have the flexibility to adopt institutional reforms and practices that
most effectively support implementation of project activities for these
programs, provided they conform with all obligations associated with an
award. We encourage collaboration among grantees and fully expect that
the network of grantees will continue to support educators throughout
the United States.
Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec. 656.3(a)(1) and 657.3(a)(1) to
expressly allow for a geographical focus that spans multiple world
areas. We have also revised the NRC selection process in Sec.
656.20(c) and the FLAS selection process in Sec. 657.20(c) to clarify
that applications are ranked within each group of applications that
shares the same or similar area of focus.
[[Page 68741]]
Grouping of World Areas at Area Studies Centers
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to require that
IHEs separate Middle East studies and South Asian studies in any Center
that combines them.
Discussion: We do not define specific world regions or determine
their appropriateness in the proposed or final regulations. Centers are
administrative units within IHEs, so IHEs determine the purpose and
structure of those administrative units.
Changes: None.
Emphasis on Less Commonly Taught Languages for the NRC Program and the
FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter supported the emphasis on Less Commonly
Taught Languages in the regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support.
Changes: None.
Funding for Title VI Programs, Including the NRC and FLAS Fellowships
Programs
Comments: Several commenters expressed generalized concern that the
purpose of the proposed regulations could be interpreted as a
recommendation to reduce the level of funding for programs authorized
under title VI of the HEA, especially the NRC and FLAS Fellowships
Programs. These commenters noted these programs support vital
educational activities.
Discussion: Funding levels for programs authorized under title VI
of the HEA, including the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs, are not
determined by program regulations. We agree these programs contribute
to national security and prosperity, among other possible
contributions.
Changes: None.
Definitions of Areas of National Need and Diverse Perspectives for
Title VI Programs
Comments: Four commenters lauded the proposed definitions of
``diverse perspectives'' and ``areas of national need.'' One commenter
did not believe the definitions would be effective, claiming that the
instruction at NRCs is biased and that the area studies scholarly
community is not equipped to ensure diverse perspectives.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters who found the definitions
helpful. Diverse perspectives help build a robust evidentiary base that
supports a comprehensive understanding of issues derived from a
multiplicity of relevant perspectives, research methodologies, and
lively scholarly debate.
Changes: None.
Conducting the Consultation on Areas of National Need for Title VI
Programs
Comments: One commenter stated the proposed regulations did not
identify how the Secretary will engage in the required consultation on
areas of national need, how the Secretary will determine areas of
national need, how the Secretary will include consultation results in
the request for applications, or how the Secretary will make available
to applicants a list of areas identified as areas of national need. The
commenter also stated that the regulations should prioritize the
results more strongly in grant competitions in order to persuade more
applicants to attempt to serve the identified national needs. One
commenter expressed concern about the possible application of world
area priorities derived from the consultation on national need during
the selection process.
Discussion: We do not believe that it is necessary to describe the
consultation process in greater detail than the description in the
statute. We have conducted these consultations in the past and the
results of these consultations since 2012 are available on the
Department's website.\2\ The definitions of ``areas of national need''
and ``consultation on areas of national need'' in these regulations
provide sufficient clarity for the purpose of conducting the
consultation and aligning the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program
with the competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/languageneeds.html">https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/languageneeds.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consultation informs the priorities we include in the
competition priorities and the notice inviting applications. After
using the consultation to develop priorities for these purposes, we do
not return to the consultation, but the results of the consultation
remain available for applicants to review. We consider how applications
address those priorities and the other selection criteria during the
selection process. That is, we read the applications against those
priorities and related selection criteria, and not directly against the
consultation. Applicants may reference the results of the consultation
when responding to the selection criteria at Sec. Sec. 656.21(c)(4),
656.21(d)(2), 656.22(c)(4), 656.21(d)(2), 656.23(a)(3), 657.21(d)(2),
and 657.21(d)(3) in the context of addressing ``areas of national
need,'' which may encompass a broader range of needs in the government,
education, business, and nonprofit sectors for expertise in foreign
language, area, and international studies identified by the Secretary.
Sections 656.24(a)(4) and 657.22(a)(9) provide us with sufficient
authority to select competition priorities based on the consultation
process and consider these priorities during the selection processes
for grants under the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program according
to the procedures described at Sec. Sec. 656.20(e) and 657.20(e). We
cannot speculate about world area priorities derived from consultations
on national need that have not occurred. However, consideration of
these priorities in the limited manner described in the regulations
will contribute to the alignment of the program with national needs for
expertise in area studies and modern foreign languages.
Changes: None.
Diversity Statements and Diverse Perspectives for Title VI Programs
Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to require
Centers receiving title VI funding to disallow sending in diversity
statements during the hiring process at IHEs. The commenter went on to
say that if the Department is interested in encouraging diverse
perspectives, it should employ peer reviewers who hold diverse views.
Discussion: The suggestion to regulate general hiring practices at
IHEs is beyond the scope of these regulations and would exceed the
statutory authority for these specific discretionary grant programs.
The Department always strives to employ expert reviewers during a
competition who represent a wide range of relevant expertise.
Changes: None.
Timing and Composition of Applications for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships
Programs
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed
changes are likely to increase the overall burden of submitting
applications to the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program because
the proposed regulations would eliminate the ability to submit a single
application to both programs. One commenter encouraged the Department
to align the applications for these programs to the greatest extent
possible. One commenter was uncertain about the degree to which the
proposed selection criteria for these programs differed. One commenter
noted the proposed selection criteria for these programs were largely
similar and responding to them in an application narrative would
require similar or
[[Page 68742]]
overlapping data. Several commenters believed the proposed changes
would result in a change in frequency or timing of the application
cycles for these programs. One commenter suggested revisions to the
burden hour calculations for these applications.
Discussion: We do not believe that the changes to the application
process will significantly increase the burden associated with the
submission of applications to both programs. Accordingly, we have not
changed the burden estimates associated with the applications based on
this change. However, as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 section below, we have changed the calculation of burden hours
based on a commenter's assertion that our previous calculations
severely underestimated the burden hours and costs associated with
these applications.
Currently, and following the implementation of these regulations,
there is and will be some overlap among the selection criteria and the
data required to respond to them. We have also attempted to align the
application processes and requirements as much as possible. Because the
purposes and requirements of the programs are different, however, it is
to be expected that there are different selection criteria for the
programs. Although we are making changes to the selection criteria for
each of the programs, we do not expect the cumulative time required to
respond to them will change.
As discussed in the NPRM, the changes to the application submission
are due to the technical limitations of the systems. These changes do
not have any bearing on the competition schedule. The requirement to
submit separate applications for each program also conforms to the
Department's expectations for grant programs described at 34 CFR
75.125.
Changes: None.
Selection Process for Institutional Awards for the NRC Program and the
FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: Three commenters questioned whether the same expert
reviewers will evaluate applications for both the NRC and FLAS
Fellowships Programs submitted separately by the same applicant.
Discussion: The regulations create the structure for a fair and
transparent selection process for the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships
Program. All grant competitions are conducted according to the
Department's policies and procedures. Revising the regulations to
address the identity of expert reviewers for two distinct programs
would not benefit the efficient administration of these programs, but
it is our intention that the same reviewers will evaluate applications
for both of these programs because of the substantial overlap in the
selection criteria and complementary program purposes.
Changes: None.
Alignment of Academic Personnel With Proposed Projects for the NRC
Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: Two commenters requested that we clarify the proposed
term ``critical mass of scholars'' by describing how critical mass will
be measured. One commenter questioned whether references to tenure and
tenure-track faculty in proposed Sec. Sec. 656.21(b)(4), 656.22(b)(4),
and 657.21(c)(1) disadvantage IHEs without tenure systems. One
commenter applauded proposed changes that anchor a grantee's mission
and success to available scholarly expertise.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter who saw a broad effort to
enhance the alignment between grantee success and academic resources.
We believe the definition of ``critical mass of scholars'' is
sufficiently clear without being overly prescriptive. A reliance on a
single metric, such as a minimum number of scholars, would fail to
account for the substantial differences in various area studies
communities and would not be sensitive to changes over time. We believe
peer reviewers are well positioned to determine what constitutes a
critical mass of scholars for a particular project. These regulations
provide a necessary degree of flexibility for applicants and grantees.
With regard to selection criteria that address the availability of
tenured or tenure-track faculty, we decided to retain these criteria
even though these criteria may disadvantage an IHE without a tenure
system. Both the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs are discretionary
grant programs that require us to make a determination of excellence
based on proposed projects and the resources relevant to area studies
and modern foreign language education. We must be reasonably assured
that the resources, including faculty and other academic personnel,
described in an application selected for funding will continue to exist
during the project period. The practice of tenure is one common
mechanism in postsecondary education that demonstrates an institution's
long-term commitment to employment, which contributes to evaluating the
likely success and sustainability of a proposed project. Yet we also
provide flexibility with regard to these selection criteria. Peer
reviewers will determine the extent to which ``enough qualified tenured
and tenure-track faculty'' are involved in teaching and advising rather
than simply confirming a minimum required number of such faculty are
present at the applicant IHE. Applicants may provide contextual
information to support peer reviewers' determinizations that any amount
of such faculty, including none, constitutes a sufficient number in the
context of a proposed project.
Changes: None.
Stated Performance Goals for Modern Foreign Language Instruction for
the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter stated both the existing and proposed
regulations share a common flaw because they do not define performance-
based language instruction.
Discussion: We decided to adopt the phrase ``stated performance
goals for functional foreign language use'' rather than ``performance-
based language instruction'' in the proposed and final regulations. The
precise meaning of the former term is likely to change over time due to
new research, pedagogical innovations, and standards set by
professional or governmental organizations. We believe the term is
sufficiently understood among specialists engaged in the various
aspects of modern foreign language education without being too limiting
or rooted in a single pedagogical approach. Although Centers likely do
not directly control the adoption or development of stated performance
goals, the use or development of stated performance goals in language
instruction facilitates the determination of excellence for the NRC
Program and reflects a statutory requirement for the instruction that
fellows receive under the FLAS Fellows Program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language instruction that adapts general standards including, but
not limited to, Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skills
Descriptions,\4\ ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines,\5\ or the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages \6\ when setting
learning objectives, goals, or outcomes for modern foreign language
courses and programs would satisfy this requirement. Language-specific
standards, such as those derived from
[[Page 68743]]
the Japanese-Language Proficiency Test (JLPT),\7\ would similarly
satisfy this requirement. IHEs or academic departments also may develop
hybrid approaches that combine elements of multiple sources or create
locally determined standards. Finally, IHEs may satisfy this
requirement by working to develop a system of stated performance goals,
even if these goals have not actually been fully developed or adopted
during the grant's performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ <a href="https://govtilr.org/">https://govtilr.org/</a>.
\5\ <a href="https://www.actfl.org/educator-resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines">https://www.actfl.org/educator-resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines</a>.
\6\ <a href="https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions">https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions</a>.
\7\ <a href="https://www.jlpt.jp/e/about/levelsummary.html">https://www.jlpt.jp/e/about/levelsummary.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not endorse a specific source for stated performance goals
because we are not directly evaluating the sufficiency or content of a
particular set of stated performance goals used by an applicant or
grantee, but we provide these examples for illustrative purposes. A
more prescriptive approach, especially one highlighting a specific
pedagogical technique or single set of standards, risks inadvertently
encouraging future applicants and grantees to implement outmoded
methods or approaches. The key expectation is that IHEs have adopted or
are working to adopt goals or standards for the use of modern foreign
languages that serve as criteria used to structure curricula, design
the student learning experience, and assess student learning. In
addition to language instruction, stated performance goals may support
other processes at grantee IHEs related to educational quality, such as
program evaluation, continuous improvement, learner placement, transfer
of student credit, and the selection of appropriate overseas programs.
Learners may further benefit from being able to communicate their
approximate level of proficiency more clearly to others, including
academic programs and potential employers, more meaningfully than would
be possible through course titles or credit hours alone.
Changes: None.
Area Studies Library Collections
Comments: One commenter expressed appreciation that a consideration
of libraries would be possible under the proposed revisions to part
655. One commenter expressed opposition to the criteria in proposed
Sec. 657.21(c)(3) and current Sec. 657.21(e)(1). This commenter
believed these criteria emphasized collections over the personnel
needed to acquire and manage collections. Four commenters expressed
general support for libraries and advocated for more support for
libraries and area studies collections. One commenter praised the
proposed changes to the library criteria, indicating that the changes
would likely result in more collaboration and coordination among
libraries thereby easing access to area content across libraries. One
commenter expressed concern that the proposed changes to the library
criteria de-emphasize HEA, title VI funding to libraries. One commenter
praised the inclusion of ``library'' in the adequacy of resources
selection criteria for NRC and FLAS. The same commenter did not see the
word ``rare'' in the proposed regulation when talking about library
collections and suggested we add it and suggested including non-
extractive collection practices as a signifier of excellence. One
commenter noted that applicants and grantees cannot set library
policies. One commenter supported evaluating libraries on the basis of
access and not on the basis of financial support in the selection
criteria for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs.
Discussion: We acknowledge and appreciate the critical
contributions that area studies librarians and other information
specialists make to area studies and modern foreign language education.
Vital research and innovative forms of educational outreach, including
knowledge dissemination, would not be possible without their efforts.
We agree that experts with specialized knowledge are crucial to
curating, expanding, and providing access to materials that support
area studies research and teaching throughout the United States.
Important library collections are a definitional characteristic of
comprehensive NRCs, and under Sec. 656.21(c)(2), library resources
will be evaluated by consideration of collections, specifically
including the extent to which they are unique, rare, or distinctive,
and policies, as well as human resources. However, to better reflect
the critical role that librarians and other information specialists
play, we are revising the selection criterion to clarify that such
experts do not merely support collections but take an active role in
administration of these collections, and the full range of expertise
required for experts in the field. Although we do not include a
reference to non-extractive collection practices in the final
regulations, applicants may discuss such approaches if they believe
they demonstrate current best practices or professional standards
associated with an important library collection.
Funding for area studies library collections and staff represents
an important investment in educational infrastructure that supports
national security and prosperity. We do not believe these selection
criteria will discourage title VI project funding for libraries. We
address libraries in the selection criteria because libraries are an
important component of area studies educational infrastructure, and
these selection criteria support the selection of applications for
funding on the statutorily required basis of excellence. We acknowledge
that grantees may be unable to set policies for other administrative
units or program, but the regulations require applicants to address
multiple indicators of excellence, including access to library
collections. In this context, access encompasses both access to
physical materials as well as access to digital resources, including
rare or distinctive resources. We believe the selection criteria will
allow for a balanced consideration of available resources, including
experts, as well as accessibility.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 656.21(c)(2) to refer to collections
that are ``managed'' by experts ``with appropriate professional
training.''
Placement of Graduates for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships
Program
Comments: One commenter suggested that NRCs should not be measured
by their placement of graduates in jobs or graduate programs because
universities do not have the ability to place students in specific jobs
or programs. The commenter suggested that, while NRCs should prepare
their graduates to enter into public service, they should not be
evaluated on this basis.
Discussion: Under the HEA, the Department must ``consider an
applicant's record of placing students into postgraduate employment,
education, or training in areas of national need and an applicant's
stated efforts to increase the number of such students that go into
such placements.'' \8\ The selection criteria appropriately implement
this requirement, which applies to both the NRC Program and the FLAS
Fellowships Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 20 U.S.C. 1127(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Consideration of Barriers to Equitable Access and Employment Practices
for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter suggested removing proposed Sec.
656.21(a)(5), relating to non-discriminatory hiring practices, from the
selection criteria for the NRC Program. The commenter also stated the
program statute does not include or support any consideration of
barriers to equitable access in the selection criteria for the FLAS
[[Page 68744]]
Fellowships Program at Sec. 657.21(e)(2). Two commenters noted an
IHE's hiring practices govern the practices of all administrative
units, preventing a single administrative unit from developing its own
policies.
Discussion: We proposed selection criteria addressing non-
discriminatory hiring practices, in part, to facilitate monitoring for
compliance with statutory and national policy requirements for Federal
assistance, as described in 2 CFR 200.300 and 34 CFR 75.700. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, those that protect free
speech, religious liberty, public welfare, and the environment, and
prohibit discrimination. However, we are convinced by commenters that,
because institutional policies provide the general framework for the
policies of subsidiary administrative units, the inclusion of selection
criteria is not the most appropriate means to support grantee
compliance with these national policy requirements. Further, we
recognize that the experts who are selected to review NRC Program and
FLAS Fellowships Program applications are selected because of their
expertise in area studies and modern foreign languages, especially in a
postsecondary education context, and not for their expertise in
national policy requirements for Federal assistance or in policies that
govern employment opportunities.
We believe it would be appropriate to require applicants to provide
an assurance addressing employment practices as well as other topics
related to institutional policies. We note that 34 CFR 100.4 identifies
an assurance as an appropriate mechanism to support compliance with the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 among grantees. We also believe an assurance
related to travel policies will support compliance with 2 CFR 200.475.
The final regulations incorporate these assurances and remove the
selection criteria mentioned here.
With regard to Sec. 657.21(e)(2), section 427 of the General
Education Provision Act requires the Department's grantees to describe
the steps the grantee will take to ensure equitable access to, and
participation in, the federally funded activities. Consequently,
grantees are required to provide similar information in their
applications. We included a selection criterion derived from this
statement for the FLAS Fellowships Program because it is an important
component of program design that affects program implementation.
Attention to equitable access and participation may increase the number
of eligible students who apply for fellowships, which would enhance the
competitive aspect of the selection process at grantee IHEs. Expert
reviewers will evaluate this criterion as a component of a
determination of the excellence of a proposed project. Eliminating this
selection criterion would adversely affect our ability to select
applications for funding on the statutorily required basis of
excellence.
Changes: We have removed the selection criterion in Sec.
656.21(a)(5) and added a requirement to Sec. Sec. 656.11 and 657.11
that applicants submit an assurance of non-discriminatory hiring
practices at the institution and an assurance that a travel policy
exists at the institution.
Consideration of Project Goals and Plans for the NRC Program and the
FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter expressed satisfaction with the changes in
the context of Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)-(f) and 656.22(d)-(f). Another
commenter expressed the need for further clarification about what
changed in this selection criterion and asked that we provide
additional guidance on defining goals and plans for projects.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPRM, we are revising Sec. Sec.
656.21(d)-(f) and 656.22(d)-(f) to address project planning, including
a consideration of a project's intended outcomes, the alignment of
project activities and intended outcomes with the purposes of the
program, and the evaluation plan for the project. A project's goals and
plans must align with the program purposes, but applicants will
determine the goals and plans that are appropriate to their proposed
projects. We will provide pre-application technical assistance to
provide more detailed guidance to applicants regarding these selection
criteria.
Changes: None.
Evaluation Plans for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter appreciated the clarity of the proposed
selection criteria related to evaluation and noted the proposed
approach clearly defined impact metrics. Two commenters noted that
high-level outcomes cannot be effectively tracked without expensive and
complex evaluation plans. One commenter lauded the perceived change
from tracking individual activities to tracking high-level outcomes but
noted that the impact of certain initiatives may not be fully realized
within a single project period. One commenter welcomed explicit
openness to non-quantitative data as a component of evaluation plans in
the proposed selection criteria. Two commenters indicated grantees
already include qualitative data in evaluation plans.
Discussion: We agree that focusing on the intended outcomes of a
project is likely to lead to useful evaluation plans that build
evidence of project impact in a more effective manner than evaluation
plans that simply track the completion of project activities. We
already work with grantees during routine monitoring throughout the
project period of an award to ensure that project activities are
implemented. In responding to the selection criteria, applicants should
articulate a proposed project's intended outcomes and how they plan to
evaluate the extent to which those intended outcomes are realized by
the end of the project period. We are aware that complex evaluation
plans may be costly and time-consuming, but reasonable costs for
evaluation activities are allowable. We expect grantees to track the
attainment of goals and the realization of intended outcomes in as
cost-effective manner as possible. We anticipate this approach will
allow grantees to track and reflect on progress toward these goals and
outcomes, even if the impact of project activities is not yet fully
realized by the end of the project period. We have revised the final
selection criteria addressing project planning and evaluation to
clarify that they pertain to ``proposed'' projects and ``intended''
outcomes, as evaluating the actual attainment of these intended
outcomes is not possible until after the project period begins.
As commenters noted, the inclusion of qualitative and quantitative
data in evaluation plans is commonplace among grantees. We believe
applicants should have the option to propose an evaluation plan that
best aligns with a project's intended outcomes and proposed activities.
Changes: We have changed all references to ``project'' and
``project outcomes'' in the selection criteria addressing project
planning and evaluation to ``proposed project'' and ``proposed
project's intended outcomes,'' respectively.
Competitive Preference Priorities for the NRC Program and the FLAS
Fellowships Program
Comments: Two commenters provided comments about specific
priorities that we have used in past competitions, but that were not in
the proposed regulations.
Discussion: These comments address competitive preference
priorities for the most recent NRC and FLAS competitions and go beyond
the
[[Page 68745]]
regulations currently under consideration. However, we appreciate the
comments insofar as they help inform the design of future competitions.
Changes: None.
Reporting Requirements for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships
Program
Comments: A commenter requested that we add a method for measuring
and reporting the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation, but the
statute does not address reporting requirements for the NRC and FLAS
Fellowships Programs related to diverse perspectives. We incorporate
reporting on this topic into the routine performance reporting
requirements for grantees under these programs.
Changes: None.
Cooperation Among National Resource Centers
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern about how Sec.
656.1(a) characterized grantees under the NRC Program as a group that
acts cooperatively to meet the program purposes, noting that it could
be interpreted as a mandate for specific project activities. One of
these commenters noted that collaboration is valuable. Another
commenter noted the proposed change holds promise. One commenter noted
the proposed change may have an unintended consequence of reducing
collaboration between NRCs and community colleges and minority-serving
institutions. The commenter also indicated that major research
universities already work collaboratively with one another. Two
commenters expressed support for the proposed changes and described how
collaboration among current NRCs has been critical to Southeast Asian
studies. One of these commenters suggested that collaboration should be
a point of emphasis for the NRC Program. One commenter asked about the
type of documentation that will be required to demonstrate cooperation.
Discussion: Cooperation and collaboration are vital approaches to
addressing national needs for area studies and modern foreign language
education in the United States. The example of Southeast Asian studies
illustrates how grantees take a joint approach to addressing national
needs for the purpose of leveraging scarce resources that will create
additional educational opportunities for postsecondary students at
multiple IHEs. Moreover, the comments present a false dichotomy between
cooperation among NRCs and between these NRCs and minority-serving
institutions. In fact, some minority-serving institutions are current
grantees under the NRC Program. The regulations do not require specific
project activities or documentation. On the contrary, the regulations
provide applicants with substantial flexibility to propose a wide range
of project activities that serve the program purposes. The NRC Program
provides awards to multiple IHEs that serve as national resources for
area studies and modern foreign language education. A programmatic
commitment to cooperation supports the program's purpose.
Changes: None.
Program Eligibility for the NRC Program
Comments: One commenter highlighted the disparities in higher
education funding in the United States and suggested that NRC program
funds should be directed to public university systems in cities of
known disparity. The commenter also suggested considering the size of
an IHE's endowment in determining program eligibility.
Discussion: The statute sets the basic eligibility criteria for
this program, including that all IHEs or consortia of IHEs are eligible
to apply. Furthermore, the statute specifically excludes the
consideration of geographical distribution within the United States as
a criterion for making awards.\9\ All awards under the NRC program are
made through a determination of excellence, per statutory requirements.
The final rule, particularly through the selection criteria for
undergraduate NRCs, supports the creation of a diverse network of
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 20 U.S.C. 1127(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Undergraduate National Resource Centers
Comments: One commenter supported the effort to highlight the
differences between comprehensive and undergraduate NRCs at Sec.
656.3(b)-(c) but contended that any change likely would not increase
the diversity of the network of undergraduate NRCs. Several commenters
emphasized that linking program eligibility to the Carnegie
Classification of IHEs, especially through counts of degrees awarded,
would be problematic for the NRC Program and that any change affecting
the definition of the undergraduate NRC category potentially would
eliminate several current NRCs hosted at IHEs with an R1 designation
and limit the overall diversity of institutions funded through the
undergraduate NRC category by excluding universities with an R1
designation, public land grant universities, and other types of
institutions. One commenter noted that the proposed regulations did not
include any limit on eligibility based on the numbers of degrees
awarded. One commenter noted that the proposed rule potentially would
be more restrictive than the program statute if the undergraduate NRC
category were limited to four-year baccalaureate colleges. The
commentor also stated that large universities, especially universities
with an R1 classification, have substantial institutional capacity that
allows for the maximal leveraging of grant funds, even if the
institutional commitment to area studies is limited to undergraduate
education. One commenter offered a similar observation about the
capacity of larger universities, especially those with an R1
classification. The commenter also suggested definitional criteria to
identify undergraduate NRCs, such as an IHE's or academic unit's
commitment to undergraduate education, degrees awarded by a particular
academic unit, or the percentage of funding or teaching activity
dedicated to undergraduate education. One commenter highlighted that
any consideration of institutional characteristics may obscure the role
played by current undergraduate NRCs as supporters of academic units
that predominantly or exclusively serve large numbers of undergraduate
students, despite the institution's overall level of engagement in
graduate education. One commenter also described undergraduate NRCs as
the foundation on which new comprehensive NRCs are built. Rather than
focusing on the size of an institution or the number of degrees
awarded, the commenter suggested categorizing Centers based on a
proposed Center's primary student audience and considering the total
number of awards an institution receives under the NRC Program as an
alternative method for distinguishing comprehensive NRCs from
undergraduate NRCs. Two commenters noted that counting degrees offered
within a specific area studies specialty at a university is difficult
because institutional categories for educational programs may not
identify the entire population of students engaged in area studies,
which would complicate implementing a precise requirement based on the
number of degrees awarded in a single area studies specialty.
[[Page 68746]]
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' variety of viewpoints on
this issue. Under the regulations, the undergraduate NRC category is
not based solely on the number or types of degrees awarded at an IHE.
As commenters noted, in the NPRM, we stated that, in the context of
proposed Sec. 656.22(b)(1), 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. We are
revising Sec. 656.22(b)(1) to shift the focus from the institution's
overall program offerings and mission to more simply evaluate the
quality of relevant academic programs available to undergraduate
students, and, accordingly, in these final regulations, we do not
consider what it means to ``predominantly'' serve undergraduate
students at the institutional level. We have revised Sec. 656.30(b)(7)
to provide that, for undergraduate Centers, project activities funded
under the NRC Program must predominantly benefit the instruction and
training of undergraduate students. This change aligns with the shift
in focus from institutional characteristics to the proposed project and
an institution's academic programs. This limitation also aligns with
the selection criteria at Sec. Sec. 656.22(d)(1) and 656.22(e)(2),
which reference definitional criteria at Sec. 656.3(c), as well as the
statutory definitional characteristic that undergraduate centers make
``training available predominantly to undergraduate students.'' \10\
Furthermore, we agree limiting eligibility for the undergraduate NRC
category solely to four-year colleges would run counter to the
statutory definition of undergraduate centers, which prescribes that
such a center should be ``an administrative unit of an IHE, including
but not limited to 4-year colleges.'' \11\ These changes better align
the selection criteria and cost limitations with the statute.
Accordingly, all IHEs in the United States that otherwise meet the
general definition will remain eligible to apply under the
undergraduate NRC category.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10).
\11\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10).
\12\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reaffirm our commitment to implement the program statute in a
manner that clearly differentiates comprehensive NRCs from
undergraduate NRCs based on the definitional characteristics outlined
in the statute because we share commenters' interest in ensuring the
NRC Program will support ``a diverse network of undergraduate'' Centers
and programs.\13\ Although we agree with commenters that large,
research-oriented IHEs with substantial commitments to advanced
graduate education may allow undergraduate NRCs to leverage grant funds
in ways that are not possible at smaller institutions, comprehensive
NRCs located at such universities already avail themselves of such
opportunities. Moreover, this is not one of the statutory definitional
characteristics of either center type and treating it as such would
risk overlooking the substantial contributions that smaller
institutions, such as four-year colleges, make to the national
educational infrastructure in foreign language and area studies fields,
while encouraging uniformity rather than diversity among applicant and
grantee institutions. Consequently, the regulations recognize the
distinct purposes of comprehensive NRCs and undergraduate NRCs without
creating a preference for a single type of IHE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters raised the possibilities of focusing on the numbers of
degrees awarded in area studies fields, the primary types of students
served by a Center, or the institutional resources allocated to
undergraduate education as alternatives to a narrow focus on the number
of degrees across all fields and levels awarded at an institution. None
of these suggestions would represent a feasible alternative that would
address the statutory definitional requirements for Center types.
Precisely counting the number of area studies degrees awarded by an
institution, as commenters mentioned, is extremely difficult if this
count spans all educational programs with relevant area studies and
foreign language components rather than a more limited set of formal
area studies educational programs. Given the diversity of educational
programs and institutions, we would not be able to enforce a single
standardized method for counting that is directly comparable across all
institutions, so a numerical eligibility criterion for undergraduate
centers likely would benefit institutions that implemented the most
advantageous counting methodologies without further aligning centers
with the statutory definitional characteristics. Likewise, determining
the primary student audience for a Center or an institutional
allocation of resources to undergraduate education would fail to make
meaningful distinctions between comprehensive Centers and undergraduate
Centers. Both types of Centers support undergraduate education and
introducing a requirement for precise calculations of resource
allocations for undergraduate area studies and language education would
face the same difficulties as precise degree counts. A Center as an
administrative unit within an IHE cannot be neatly untangled from the
rest of the institution.
Rather than introducing numerical criteria not described in the
program statute, we choose to emphasize the statutory definitional
criteria and the program purpose, including the statute's interest in
providing grants to a diverse network of undergraduate centers. The
selection criteria for undergraduate Centers in these regulations
reflect this approach.
The HEA does not provide that an undergraduate Center represents a
stage in a process that concludes with the establishment of a
comprehensive Center. The purposes of the two Center types are
sufficiently distinct that we do not presume one type of Center will
evolve into the other type over time, even though the statute does not
preclude it. Applicants make the final decisions about the NRC type
they are applying under and their proposed project activities.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 656.3(c)(7) to emphasize
undergraduate education. We have revised Sec. 656.22 to more clearly
emphasize that undergraduate Centers should focus on undergraduate
students as well as to highlight the formation of a diverse network of
undergraduate Centers. We have also revised Sec. 656.22(c) regarding
library collections for undergraduate Centers and Sec. 656.30(b)(7) to
indicate that undergraduate Centers must benefit the instruction and
training of undergraduate students.
Special Purpose Grants Under the NRC Program
Comments: Eight commenters approved of the clarification provided
about special purpose grants in Sec. 656.4 as well as the selection
criteria developed for those grants in Sec. 656.23. One of those
commenters did express some confusion about what entities might be able
to apply for these special grants. Many of the approving comments
specifically mentioned that library collections and summer language
institutes could benefit from such grants. One other commenter
suggested defining special purpose grants in a way that addresses the
need for collaborative infrastructure projects in scholarly
[[Page 68747]]
communication with open access in mind. One commenter expressed concern
that applying for a special purpose grant would require extra effort
for an NRC grantee.
Discussion: The special purpose grants described in Sec. 656.4 are
authorized under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(4) as a component of the NRC
Program. Accordingly, NRCs are the only eligible entities. The
selection and implementation of these grants occurs independently of
any awards made by parts of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations
other than part 656. Consequently, these special purpose grants are
unrelated to any forms of Federal assistance authorized under the
Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act)
or by other sections of title VI of the HEA. Selection of projects for
funding as awards described in Sec. 656.4 is separate from the
selection of comprehensive and undergraduate NRCs for funding, as
described at Sec. 656.20(a). Accordingly, while applying for a special
purpose grant will require extra effort for NRCs interested in
applying, there is no requirement that NRCs apply and if they do so
they will be applying to a separate program with its own separate
application. We would expect, therefore, that NRCs would only apply to
this program if the perceived potential benefits of receiving an award
would outweigh the burden of completing and submitting an application.
Changes: We have changed the wording at Sec. 656.4 to ``special
purpose grants,'' and added the word ``additional'' to Sec. 656.23, to
more clearly delineate them from NRC grants.
Institutional Capacity at IHEs, Project Design, and the NRC Program
Comments: In response to the selection criteria in Sec. Sec.
656.21(a)(2), 656.22(a)(2), 656.21(a)(4), and 656.22(a) relating to
institutional capacity, one commenter noted that NRC leaders do not
always play a role in institutional leadership. The commenter suggested
that enhancing institutional capacity might be understood as allocating
resources to help develop and support programming. The commenter
alluded to a special role for the current NRCs in the International
category as the primary agents of capacity building.
Discussion: We adopt selection criteria in order to implement a
statutorily required determination of excellence. The selection
criteria incorporate an evaluation of existing capacity as well as
proposed project activities. The regulations define a NRC as an
administrative unit with the capacity to coordinate educational
initiatives related to its area of focus. The new selection criteria
addressing institutional capacity in the regulations reformulate the
criteria addressing long-term impact of proposed grant activities that
have been a component of the NRC Program for decades. Accordingly, the
extent to which an applicant proposes to build institutional capacity
that will outlast the project period is an appropriate indicator that
an applicant is capable of coordinating educational initiatives and
that Federal funds are being spent effectively for project activities
in support of program purposes. Eliminating these criteria would not be
responsive to the finding of Congress that, ``Systematic efforts are
necessary to enhance the capacity of IHEs in the United States for (A)
producing graduates with international and foreign language expertise
and knowledge; and (B) research regarding such expertise and
knowledge.'' \14\ Similarly, removing these criteria would not serve
the program purposes or national needs related to expertise and
knowledge in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other similar
fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are aware that applicants and grantees may face difficulties and
challenges when building institutional capacity through their projects,
but we are not convinced that doing so is impossible in the context of
the NRC Program. The comments on this topic fail to account for
ambitious and successful projects executed by grantees over many
decades across all program categories, especially in the categories
with a geographic area of focus. Grantees are highly effective in
allocating funds in ways intended to contribute to long-term effects.
Grantees have used grant funds to cover substantial portions of the
cost associated with seeding faculty hires. Grantees have also piloted
courses using grant funds to demonstrate that certain courses,
especially those in the less commonly taught languages, are viable and
can be sustained without grant funding or with substantially reduced
amounts of grant funding. Grantees routinely support library
collections development. Grantees also build sustainable outreach
programs that can exist without grant funds or that can be expanded
using grant funds because core elements of these efforts have been
institutionalized.
In implementing these discretionary grant programs, we are adopting
selection criteria that support the selection of applications for
funding from applicants who are likely to have this type of impact. The
success of grantees in these initiatives may be related to the choice
of project activities and the ability to align project activities with
the missions of their respective institutions. The new selection
criteria require the articulation of alignment among project
activities, the intended outcomes of the project and the program
purpose. We expect this approach will make project design more
transparent and intentional by requiring applicants to explain the
alignment between programming or activities and a particular purpose or
goal. According to this approach, the number or variety of activities
funded by a project is much less important or consequential than the
contribution that each high quality and program-relevant activity is
likely to make toward realizing the project's intended outcomes.
When revising these program regulations, we must adopt a
perspective that accounts for the high degree of variation among IHEs.
The comment attempts to generalize a condition that only exists at IHEs
that receive many concurrent awards under the NRC Program by suggesting
that NRCs in the current international category are the most capable
agents of capacity building, especially at institutions with many area
studies centers. The NRC Program benefits from the diversity of
organizational arrangements and experimentation in organizational forms
at IHEs. We appreciate the cooperation among grantees implied in this
statement, but the precise nature of the relationships among
administrative units within an institution is determined by many
contingent organizational factors that are not components of the NRC
Program. In addition, if a proposed project primarily exists to
coordinate other proposed projects from area studies centers, the
project may struggle at the implementation phase if the area studies
centers are not also funded and thus unable to contribute project
resources. Moreover, although grantee institutions may develop
hierarchical organizational structures to administer area and
international studies centers, nothing in the program statute requires
or implies a fixed hierarchy among Centers across the program's
administrative world area categories. Institutional circumstances give
rise to a variety of arrangements, and grantees thrive in many
different environments.
The comments point to the need to reevaluate the terminology in
Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)(3) and 656.22(d)(3) as well as in selection
criteria that address project outcomes. The final regulations
incorporate a broader interest in both
[[Page 68748]]
academic and institutional capacity. We decline to define these terms
in these regulations, but we generally interpret academic and
institutional capacity as the human, organizational, material, and
intellectual resources that enable teaching, research, and the
dissemination of knowledge related to area studies and international
studies. We expect grantees' efforts to build academic or institutional
capacity that will strengthen the educational infrastructure in their
respective areas of focus.
Changes: We have added the phrase ``academic and/or'' before the
word ``institutional'' in Sec. Sec. 656.21(d)(3), 656.22(d)(3), and
656.23(a)(4).
Financial Support and Staff for the NRC Program
Comments: Two commenters stated that a selection criterion
addressing support for a center as administrative unit would elicit a
response different from a criterion that addressed all support at an
institution, leading to a concern that an institution would appear to
lack sufficient support. These two commenters expressed confusion about
the change to Sec. Sec. 656.21 (a)(2) and 656.22 (a)(2) since the
existing regulations already ask for qualifications of Center staff.
One of those commenters, however, went on to object to the proposed
regulations' limitation of these selection criteria to Center staff.
One of these commenters also noted the proposed approach would
eliminate consideration of personnel qualifications of individuals
apart from the project director and Center staff from the selection
process. One commenter noted that differentiating support for a
Center's project from more general support for a Center may be
difficult and requested a specific definition of ``institutional
support.'' One commenter welcomed this change in focus and noted that
the reduced scope may lead to a reduction in burden hours associated
with the application. Three commenters strongly objected to the
proposed change since the commenters' institutions rely on teaching
faculty and staff to run their Centers' projects. These commenters were
concerned that limiting these selection criteria to the qualifications
of Center staff would restrict consideration of faculty qualifications,
leading to the failure to receive title VI funding. One commenter
suggested that personnel qualifications have subgroupings of university
administration, Center administration, Center staff, and Center faculty
and lecturers. One commenter expressed approval of the changes to
Sec. Sec. 656.21 (a)(2) and 656.22 (a)(2).
Discussion: These selection criteria address the administrative
capacity of the administrative unit on campus responsible for
implementation of the grant project. Transparency about the resources
available to that unit is important because these resources provide
indicators of excellence and support responsible stewardship of Federal
funds during project implementation. At a minimum, we expect all
grantees to be capable of administering Federal funds, overseeing the
implementation of project activities, and meeting all reporting
obligations. Although applicants may discuss units and arrangements
that support the administrative unit's capacity to administer the
grant, a wide-ranging discussion of all resources relevant to an
applicant's area of focus is unnecessary because other selection
criteria address specific types of support in relation to instruction,
research, libraries, and outreach. Likewise, other selection criteria
allow an evaluation of the qualifications of specific types of
personnel, such as faculty, in an appropriate context. The selection
criteria allow for an evaluation of the administrative capacity of a
proposed NRC as well as of an evaluation of other personnel and
resources in a manner that does not conflate the two. The presence of
highly qualified faculty at an institution may support significant
research and effective instruction without directly contributing to
project administration. Similarly, a project is unlikely to be
successful if several highly qualified individuals are not directly
engaged in project administration. All these elements are present in
the selection criteria. We do not see the need to define
``institutional support.'' However, we are persuaded to revise the
selection criteria to adequately account for the full range of
personnel directly involved in project implementation, including
faculty who administer project activities.
Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec. 656.21(a)(2) and 656.22(a)(2)
to include ``other staff, including relevant staff and faculty'' who
``administer the proposed Center and oversee the implementation of
project activities.''
Outreach at National Level for the NRC Program
Comments: In response to the selection criteria at Sec. Sec.
656.21(c) and 656.22(c), two commenters suggested allowing NRC grantees
to determine national initiatives after the grant is awarded.
Discussion: Plans for outreach activities must be devised as part
of the application process so that expert reviewers can review, assess,
and score those plans. This means any planning for outreach activities
with national impact must be devised prior to award.
Changes: None.
Allowable Costs for the NRC Program
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern at the proposed cost
limitations in Sec. 656.30(5) for the NRC Program related to personnel
costs because personnel who are not involved in the instruction of Less
Commonly Taught Languages may be an important component of implementing
proposed projects. Two commenters specifically addressed the limitation
on compensation for project directors.
Discussion: We acknowledge that project personnel serve in many
different roles to support the successful implementation of projects
funded under the NRC Program. Personnel such as educational outreach
specialists make critical contributions to these projects, and many
activities simply would not be possible or implemented as successfully
without such skilled individuals. The regulations strike a balance
between ensuring institutions' commitment to the project and providing
applicants with the flexibility necessary to propose high-quality
projects that address needs in area studies and modern foreign language
education.
The addition of a limitation on compensation for individuals who
are not engaged in the instruction of Less Commonly Taught Languages
supports this aim. Although funds from a single award may not cover the
cost of more than 50 percent of the compensation, including fringe
benefits, for such an individual, multiple awards may fund such
personnel up to 100 percent of actual compensation costs, even though
no one award may go above this limit.
The project director is the individual identified as the ``project
director'' or ``recipient project director'' on the grant award notice
(GAN) because they have sufficient authority and overall responsibility
for implementing a project selected for funding on behalf of an IHE.
Some grantees may refer to this role as a ``principal investigator''
for administrative purposes. The project director is considered key
personnel. Project directors typically serve as the director of an
administrative unit and are faculty at the grantee institution. Because
these individuals frequently fill administrative roles at their
institutions and receive compensation for that role, the cost
limitation on compensation for project directors supports the NRC
Program's goal of supplementing rather than supplanting grant funds.
Project
[[Page 68749]]
directors usually are experts in one or more aspects of area studies
and modern foreign language education, and the person initially
identified as the project director might change during the project
period because these roles tend to be associated with an individual's
role within an institution. For example, an individual responsible for
implementing a specific project activity based on their expertise may
serve as the project director for a portion of the project period, even
if they were not initially identified as the project director in the
NRC application. Accordingly, project directors should not be prevented
from receiving other allowable, reasonable, and allocable payments
related to the implementation of activities described in an application
selected for funding under the NRC Program.
In reconsidering allowable personnel costs, the Department further
reviewed allowable costs and cost limitations for the program more
generally. In addition to Center personnel, faculty, and other
university staff, we determined that alumni also may contribute to
project implementation and a Center's effort to evaluate the quality of
project implementation. Accordingly, we added alumni to the list of
appropriate objects of linkages explicitly authorized by Sec.
656.30(a)(8). We also made additional technical changes to update
terminology related to approvals and add clarity. These technical
changes will support efficient program implementation.
Changes: We added alumni to Sec. 656.30(a)(8). We removed the
words ``are pre-approved'' and replaced them with ``have received prior
approval'' at Sec. 656.30(b)(2). We combined proposed Sec.
656.30(b)(4) with proposed Sec. 656.30(b)(5) and expanded the
discussion to clarify limitations on personnel costs. We renumbered the
remaining elements in Sec. 656.30(b). We removed ``pre-approval'' from
what is now Sec. 656.30(b)(5) and replaced it with ``prior approval.''
Educational Program Fellow Eligibility Criterion for the FLAS
Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter welcomed the attention to a fellow's
educational program and the encouragement to develop formal curricular
options in area studies and modern foreign language instruction at
Sec. 657.4. Six commenters expressed concern that many educational
programs, especially programs in professional and STEM fields, do not
have explicit requirements for language instruction, so the number of
eligible students in these programs potentially would decrease. Two
commenters noted the specific difficulty of integrating language or
area studies instruction into STEM programs, but one commenter
indicated that such integration may be possible within a decade. One
commenter suggested rewording the criterion to allow for the option for
instruction or research in area studies, specifically to maximize the
potential eligibility of students in STEM fields. One commenter
suggested limiting the criterion to academic year fellowships. One
commenter expressed a general concern that the criterion would be
problematic for students with financial need and students from
underrepresented groups.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' analysis and suggestions
related to the educational program eligibility criterion for the FLAS
Fellowships Program. We acknowledge that any change to the fellow
eligibility criteria for the program may change the composition of
fellowship recipients. As discussed in the NPRM, we maintain that a
holistic emphasis on educational programs rather than solely focusing
on individual courses during a specific academic term is more likely
than other approaches to ensure that fellowships are supporting the
structured and intentional training of experts within appropriate
curricular frameworks. Such a reliance on educational programs fits
broadly within the accreditation framework for IHEs and ensures that
IHEs maintain control over instructional content and curriculum.
However, we acknowledge the concerns raised by commenters that students
in STEM and professional educational programs with a substantial
commitment to area or international studies may be unable to satisfy
fellowship eligibility criteria because of the highly structured nature
of these programs. Accordingly, the final regulations balance the
program's purpose to cultivate expertise through advanced training in
area and international studies with an interest in cultivating diverse
types of expertise across a wide variety of academic specializations
that promote national security and prosperity.
We accept the commenter's suggestion to limit the application of an
educational program eligibility criterion to fellows receiving academic
year fellowships. The FLAS Fellowships program has long operated under
the assumption that academic year fellowships and summer fellowships
serve distinct purposes. The academic year fellowships have required
and continue to require that fellows enroll in both area studies
courses and modern foreign language courses while they pursue their
degrees. The academic year fellowships also provide limited support for
dissertation research and writing. By contrast, summer fellowships have
been and remain more narrowly focused exclusively on the intensive
study of a foreign language. The latter category of fellowships
frequently supports fellows to study at overseas language programs or
at domestic summer language institutes, both of which represent vital
components of area studies and foreign language education
infrastructure. Because most educational programs at IHEs do not
include mandatory summer coursework, intensive summer language study is
a viable mechanism for students in any field of study to increase their
proficiency in a foreign language without delaying timely progress
toward degree completion. This approach ensures that many qualified
students across a multitude of IHEs will be eligible for summer
fellowships.
In general, we regard a student's educational program to encompass
all formal curricular options available to a student at a given IHE.
The nomenclature for these curricular options varies by institution.
Such curricular options include, but are not limited to, major fields
of study, general education requirements as well as any certificates,
concentrations, specializations, minor fields of study, or other
established components of an institution's curriculum. The common
feature of these curricular options is that they represent a recognized
and structured course of study for a student. In most cases, academic
advisors, faculty, or some combination of both are knowledgeable about
these options and, because these curricular options are a formal
component of an institution's curriculum, institutions have
demonstrated to accreditors that sufficient educational infrastructure
exists to support these programs. This approach is quite flexible and
recognizes that many students with a deep commitment to area studies
and modern foreign language expertise do not enroll in a major field of
study formally described as area studies or offered by a standalone
interdisciplinary area studies department.
Under Sec. 657.4(f), several educational program scenarios would
meet the eligibility requirements for an academic year fellowship, such
as an undergraduate pursuing a major in international studies that
ordinarily allows a student to take courses in a regional
specialization and a foreign language would be eligible. Likewise, an
undergraduate student double majoring in computer science and history
with a
[[Page 68750]]
minor in Chinese or any modern foreign language would be eligible if
the history major ordinarily includes courses on internationally
oriented topics. An undergraduate with general education requirements
for foreign language courses and courses on global topics would be
eligible. A doctoral student in a political science department pursuing
a concentration in an internationally oriented field such as
international relations or comparative politics would be eligible,
provided that the degree also ordinarily includes an expectation of
proficiency in one or more foreign languages. A master's student
pursuing a specialty in global public health and a graduate certificate
in African studies that incorporates a language course requirement
likewise would be eligible for an academic year fellowship. These
examples are not an exhaustive list of all eligible educational
programs, but these examples are illustrative of the general principle
that are codified with the criterion. The core expectation is that the
student has selected one or a combination of curricular options that,
when considered in their totality, requires or ordinarily includes
coursework in area studies or international studies as well as a modern
foreign language component. Academic year fellows must satisfy the
educational program eligibility criterion during the fellowship term,
so a student who aspires or plans to pursue a suitable educational
program generally without completing the process determined by their
IHE to declare, select, or otherwise formally indicate their intention
to complete an appropriate educational program generally would not be
eligible to receive a fellowship.
This curriculum-based approach to the educational program
eligibility criterion aligns fellowship support with a fellow's overall
academic trajectory. Although interdisciplinary area studies programs
are likely to meet this expectation, such programs are not the only
pathway to satisfying the educational program eligibility criterion.
The selection criterion in Sec. 657.21(b)(1) requires applicants to
explain the extent to which the applicant's curriculum provides
training options for students from a variety of disciplines and
professional fields, and the extent to which the curriculum and
associated requirements (including language requirements) are
appropriate for the applicant's area of focus and result in educational
programs of high quality for students who will be served by the
proposed allocation of fellowships. We encourage applicants to address
this selection criterion with the educational program eligibility
criterion in mind because applicants may describe relevant educational
programs that are not formal area studies programs when addressing this
selection criterion.
Despite the substantial flexibility incorporated into the
educational program eligibility criterion, we acknowledge that students
specializing in STEM or professional fields are likely to face an acute
lack of eligible educational programs, especially at the graduate
level, and that the creation of such programs can only be accomplished
through substantial and sustained effort over an extended period of
time. Consequently, we have revised the criterion to incorporate an
alternative approach to the educational program requirement for
students in educational programs that include substantial amounts of
coursework in STEM or professional fields. The revised approach allows
students who meet this description to demonstrate fellowship
eligibility by showing they have the option to take required area
studies and modern foreign language courses required by the fellowship
and by selecting these courses under the advisement of one or more
individuals with appropriate area studies qualifications and knowledge
of the student's educational program. In the absence of a formal
curricular option, this advising requirement ensures the fellow's
courses are chosen with a degree of intentionality and in support of
the student's academic trajectory. For the purposes of interpreting
this eligibility criterion, we generally would regard professional
fields as those involving specialized training that typically involve
educational programs leading to professional degrees and/or licensure
prior to beginning professional practice. These fields include, but are
not limited to, law, medicine, education, and dentistry.
This ad hoc approach may prove less necessary in the future when
appropriate formal curricular options become available because students
specializing in these fields will be best served when they have routine
access to suitable instruction and training through formal curricular
options. Formal curricular options not only indicate an intentional
academic and intellectual commitment to students, but these formal
curricular options also are potential ways to reduce or eliminate
administrative barriers that prevent students from accessing suitable
training and instruction, such as different tuition rates within an
institution or incompatible procedures for course registration. The
revised approach is not intended to imply that any preference or
special benefit is afforded to students in professional or STEM fields.
Rather, this criterion is intended to support the overall purpose of
the FLAS Fellowships Program, which is to support the development of
experts through advanced training in modern foreign languages as well
as area studies or the international aspects of other fields.
We distribute a limited amount of funding under the NRC Program and
the FLAS Fellowships Program on the basis of excellence to stimulate
activities that align with the purposes of these programs. Foreign
language and area studies curricula are a reasonable component of this
determination and for subsequent determinations of the eligibility of
FLAS fellows. The program's commitment to interdisciplinarity
necessarily includes support for innovative interdisciplinary curricula
that integrate these types of expertise with professional and STEM
fields. Additionally, achieving this form of interdisciplinarity may be
achieved from more than one direction and more than one pathway. In
addition to expanding the representation of international and foreign
language education within STEM and professional programs, programs with
a firm grounding in international and foreign language education may
innovate by integrating appropriate elements of STEM and professional
fields.
Education also extends beyond a single degree at a single IHE.
Given the lifelong nature of learning, FLAS fellows may pursue multiple
degrees or postsecondary education credentials, for example, an
undergraduate who majors in international studies will continue to
benefit from expertise in international topics and languages if that
same undergraduate enrolls in a graduate program in a STEM or
professional field. The FLAS Fellowships Program is not the only
program that supports the intersection of STEM education, professional
education, and international and foreign language education. Section
656.30(a)(10) specifically allows NRCs to engage in activities intended
to increase modern foreign language proficiency among students in the
STEM fields. IHEs may propose complementary projects that address the
approaches and issues discussed above.
Changes: We revised the introductory paragraph of Sec. 657.4 to
indicate that the educational program requirement applies only to
academic year FLAS fellows. Paragraph (c) of proposed
[[Page 68751]]
Sec. 657.4 has been moved and redesignated as paragraph (f) in the
final regulations. This paragraph has been revised to clarify the
general applicability of the educational program criterion and expanded
to include Sec. 657.4(f)(2), which addresses the educational program
eligibility criterion that applies to certain students in STEM and
professional fields. In addition, paragraphs (d)-(f) of proposed Sec.
657.4 have been redesignated as paragraphs (c)-(e).
Fellowship Payments Under the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: We received 33 comments that expressed criticism of the
proposed change to a single stipend payment rather than a stipend
payment and an institutional payment for FLAS fellowships. The
criticism focused on tax implications for students, complications with
Federal student aid, the potential loss of health insurance currently
provided by some institutions, higher tuition costs, and other
unintended consequences. Numerous commenters expressed concern that
limiting FLAS to a stipend payment would increase the tax burden of
students because a higher stipend would increase taxable income for
students receiving FLAS fellowships. Some commenters indicated that a
large stipend would complicate Federal student aid calculations,
perhaps even leading FLAS students to max out their stipend allowance
since some institutions place a limit on how much funding one student
can receive in any given year. Other commenters expressed concern that
at their institutions, issuing the fellowship using a stipend-only
approach would make FLAS students ineligible for ``fellow'' status,
which would have implications for tuition remission and health
insurance provision at their institutions. One commenter also said that
their institution includes fringe benefits as a component of the FLAS
fellowship and the stipend-only approach would alter the status of FLAS
fellows thereby complicating the administration of the fellowship.
Given that the aim of using a stipend-only approach is to simplify FLAS
administration, this commenter made the point that we are replacing
complexity with a different form of complexity. Overall, commenters on
this topic, all of whom indicated that they currently administer
allocations of FLAS fellowships, appear to agree that the current
approach to administering allocations of FLAS fellowships with separate
stipend and institutional payments is likely to be easier and more
beneficial to FLAS fellows than the changes proposed in the NPRM.
Discussion: We proposed a stipend-only approach, in part, in an
attempt to lighten the burden of administering FLAS grants at grantee
institutions. We also wanted to provide FLAS fellows with more control
over the funding they receive in the belief that it would provide
flexibility while extending the reach of their funding. The comments we
received allay the concerns we had. The commenters assured us that FLAS
administration is not too burdensome and that instituting a stipend-
only payment is likely to cause unintended consequences that will not
benefit FLAS fellows. The commenters also alerted us to other fees and
expenses fellows have, including, but not limited to, health insurance
premiums. Given the continued use of the institutional payment, we
clarify the allowable costs for the institutional payment component of
the fellowship in the final regulations. We also clarified how these
payments interact with other Federal fellowships and added a disclosure
requirement when a fellow receives multiple Federal fellowships to
reduce the likelihood that an improper payment will be made. A FLAS
fellow generally may receive the full amount of multiple stipend
payments, provided the fellowships support distinct program purposes.
However, the amount of a fellow's institutional payment under the FLAS
Fellowships Program cannot exceed actual costs related to the fellow's
cost of attendance. Moreover, certain allowances permissible under the
FLAS Fellowships Program, such as dependent allowances, may be
disallowed for an individual fellow if such a payment would be
duplicative of a component of another Federal award.
Changes: We have reverted to the two-payment system that the
previous regulations used (see Sec. 657.5). We have expanded the
definition of ``institutional payment'' at Sec. 657.7(b) to align the
components of the payment with fees students are typically expected to
pay as students of the institution they attend. We have included a
definition of ``travel allowance'' as well at Sec. 657.7(b), which
provides more detail and clarity as to what FLAS travel allowances may
cover. We have clarified the applicability of the various fellowship
payments and the notices announcing the permissibility and amounts of
these payments in Sec. 657.5(c)-(d). We have added a disclosure
requirement and further clarification related to multiple Federal
fellowships at Sec. 657.30(g).
Advising for Fellows in the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: Three commenters indicated providing academic or career
advising specifically for FLAS fellows would violate principles of
equity by establishing a separate standard for fellows. One of these
commenters suggested an alternative formulation for Sec. 657.21(c)(2),
which would evaluate: ``engaged academic and career advising that is
responsive to individual fellow's strengths and experiences.''
Discussion: We do not agree that an expectation for advising would
further distinguish a group of program beneficiaries under the FLAS
Fellowships Program who have been selected to receive fellowships. IHEs
that receive an allocation of fellowships and personnel responsible for
administering FLAS fellowships at these IHEs must ensure that fellows
meet fellowship requirements. This obligation necessarily entails
providing relevant information to fellows and, to the extent possible,
ensuring fellows have access to the necessary forms of advising because
fellows have obligations that typically are distinct from the
obligations common to all students at an institution. The proposed
selection criterion at Sec. 657.21(c)(2), potentially extended the
scope of advising issues related to compliance and safety, which are
directly related to program implementation. The final selection
criterion is more narrowly focused, but it does not preclude applicants
from discussing all forms of advising available to fellows, including
career advising.
Changes: ``Career'' has been removed from Sec. 657.21(c)(2) and
replaced with ``other relevant'' forms of advising that address
``compliance with fellowship requirements.'' In addition, the other
forms of advising now include, ``and, as appropriate, safety while
studying outside the United States.''
Research and Study Abroad in the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter expressed satisfaction with the new
language at Sec. 657.21(c)(4) clarifying the study abroad component of
the Quality of Faculty and Academic Resources selection criterion for
the FLAS Fellowships Program. The commenter believed it is important
for FLAS to support advanced language study abroad.
Discussion: We included this selection criterion because it is an
important component of program design and supports the selection of
applications for funding on the
[[Page 68752]]
statutorily required basis of excellence. FLAS fellows benefit greatly
from access to opportunities to language instruction and research
opportunities in the United States as well as outside the United
States.
Changes: None.
Role of Distance Education in the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: Three comments expressed support for the proposed
inclusion of distance education as a means for fellows to satisfy
course requirements for the FLAS Fellowships Program. One of these
comments specifically indicated that distance education enhances access
to courses at the national level.
Discussion: We appreciate the support from commenters. Distance
education may prove vital to expanding access to high quality
instruction, especially in the Less Commonly Taught Languages.
Changes: None.
Role of Internships in the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the allowability of
internships for FLAS fellows.
Discussion: Internships may help fellows achieve their educational
and professional goals. However, as specified in the regulations,
coursework or dissertation research remain the primary means for
fellows to satisfy program requirements for the FLAS Fellowships
Program. Nevertheless, we encourage fellows to engage in experiential
learning opportunities that utilize their modern foreign language and
area studies expertise.
Changes: None.
Transfers of Funds Among Grantees Under the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: One commenter thought grantees should be allowed to
transfer excess FLAS balances to other grantee IHEs that have received
an allocation of fellowships. The commenter argued that this would
enable collaboration as well as increase efficiency and flexibility in
the FLAS Fellowships Program.
Discussion: Under 2 CFR 200.308(c), grantees may not make changes
to project scope and project objectives without prior Department
approval. When an applicant institution submits its FLAS Fellowships
Program application for an allocation of fellowships, it is requesting
FLAS fellowships explicitly to serve eligible students at the applicant
institution. In the case of an allocation of fellowships for Middle
East studies, for example, the applicant institution commits to
supporting students at that institution studying specific languages in
the Middle East world area and related area studies training. If the
applicant institution receives the grant supporting students studying
the approved languages of the Middle East at that institution, that
defines the scope of the project. Transferring excess funds from one
FLAS grantee to another FLAS grantee would transfer funds to a project
with a different scope, effectively changing the scope of the initial
project.
Changes: None.
Clock Hour
Comments: None.
Discussion: In proposed Sec. 655.4, we defined ``clock hour'' for
the purpose of part 655 and the International Education Programs, but
we continued to use ``contact hour'' rather than ``clock hour'' in the
proposed definition of ``intensive language instruction'' and in the
NRC Program priority related to the intensity of language instruction
in proposed Sec. 656.24(a)(3).
Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec. 655.4(b) and 656.24(a)(3) to
substitute ``clock hour'' for ``contact hour'' in the definition of
``intensive language instruction'' and in a possible priority for the
NRC Program, respectively.
Institutional Responsibilities Under the FLAS Fellowships Program
Comments: None.
Discussion: We believe it would be helpful to provide institutions
receiving allocations of fellowships under part 657 a single,
streamlined reference to their responsibilities under this part.
Accordingly, we are adding Sec. 657.34 to assist grantees by providing
a consolidated reference point of the post-award responsibilities that
attach to an institution receiving funding under this part. This
administrative addition does not add or alter any substantive
responsibilities of institutions receiving funding under part 657.
Changes: The Department has added Sec. 657.34 to clarify and
contain a single reference to the post-award responsibilities of an
institution receiving funding under this part with respect to the
administration of fellowship awards.
Good Academic Standing for FLAS Fellows
Comments: None.
Discussion: Both the original and proposed regulations utilized the
term ``good standing'' in the regulations for the FLAS Fellowships
Program. This term may be unnecessarily ambiguous without additional
explanatory statements. We are clarifying the regulations to specify
that our interest is in academic standing rather than any other types
of standing. This term is widely used by IHEs and the precise meaning
of the term follows the institutional policies at each IHE that
receives an allocation of fellowships.
Changes: The term ``academic'' was inserted between ``good'' and
``standing'' in Sec. 657.31(c).
Stakeholder Engagement
Comments: One commenter, who submitted a comment on behalf of
multiple associations, suggested a 30-day window for public comments
may reduce the number of comments submitted. The commenter expressed a
hope that we will take comments seriously despite the short comment
period.
Discussion: We have received numerous comments on the proposed
regulations, including the commenter's comment. We assure the commenter
that we have taken all comments seriously, including this one.
Changes: None.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Secretary must determine
whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as
amended by E.O. 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as
an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
[[Page 68753]]
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by E.O. 14094).
We have also reviewed these regulations under E.O. 13563, which
supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. To
the extent permitted by law, E.O. 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or providing
information that enables the public to make choices.
E.O. 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible.'' OMB's OIRA has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
The Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and we are
issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated
elsewhere in this document, the Department believes that the final
regulations are consistent with the principles in E.O. 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 this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, and net budget
impacts.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The potential costs to applicants, grant recipients, and the
Department associated with the final regulations will be minimal, while
there will be greater potential benefits to applicants, grant
recipients, and the Department. We anticipate a minimal increase in NRC
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program applications due to the revision
of 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 relatively the same in future years.
The changes to the selection criteria require the Department to
develop new technical review forms. These regulations also 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, these changes to the selection criteria have no effect
on current grant recipients under both programs. The Department also
believes these changes will 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 revised 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 will 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 do not make any major changes to the FLAS Fellowships
Program, grant recipients will 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 cumulative net impact of the revised fellow
eligibility criteria and the revised program selection criteria are
expected to have minimal impact on the number of applications that
recipient IHEs will need to process. The Department expects the
anticipated costs of the new disclosure requirement for fellows who
receive multiple Federal fellowships to be minimal. This situation is
uncommon and IHEs will implement disclosure processes responsive to
local conditions and practices.
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 project administration requirements 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
[[Page 68754]]
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that the final regulations will 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 final
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.\15\ As a result of
discussions with the SBA, 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.\16\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.
\16\ 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 final regulations will affect IHEs
that meet the definition of small entities. They will not have a
significant economic impact on these entities, however, because they
will not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary
Federal supervision. The final regulations impose minimal requirements
to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
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 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
these final regulations, we provide 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 is impacted by these 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
[[Page 68755]]
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 IHEs or consortia of IHEs, to meritorious students
enrolled in programs that offer 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 IHEs use the information collection to submit applications
to the Department 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,
Department program officials consider the evaluations from the expert
review panels, in conjunction with the NRC and FLAS legislative
purposes and any Administration priorities. Department 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
revised 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 reduced the
comprehensive NRC selection criteria from 10 criteria with 27 sub-
criteria to six criteria with 23 sub-criteria; the undergraduate NRC
selection criteria from 10 criteria with 26 sub-criteria to six
criteria with 23 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) is affected by the 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 no longer addresses aspects of the FLAS
program. The changes to the NRC selection criteria clarify
interpretations of statutory language and redesign the selection
criteria. The final regulations 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 (1840-0867) is affected by the 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 reflects the separation of the applications for
the NRC and FLAS programs. The changes to the FLAS selection criteria
clarify interpretations of statutory language and redesign the
selection criteria. The regulations 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). These regulations necessitate fully separating
the information collection into two distinct information collections.
The NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs' application had previously been
estimated to have 27 burden hours. Based on a commenter's assertion
that our previous calculations severely underestimated the burden hours
and costs of this collection, the application now is estimated to have
a burden of 420 hours. When multiplied by 165 respondents, this results
in Total Annual Burden hours of 69,300. The Total Annual Costs for the
application are determined to be $2,286,900 when the burden hours are
multiplied by the commenter's recommended hourly wage of $33.
The NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program 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, 420 hours to complete both
applications is reduced to 210 hours each. When multiplied by 165
respondents this yields Total Annual Burden Hours of 34,650 and Total
Annual Costs of $1,143,450. Averaged over three years, the Total Annual
Burden Hours are 11,550 and the Total Annual Costs are $381,150 for
each program.
[[Page 68756]]
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............................... 165 165 210 $33 11,550 $381,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAS Fellowships Program (1840-0867)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number of Number of Average respondent Total annual Total annual
Affected type respondents responses burden hours average burden hours costs
per response hourly wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions, private or non-profit............................... 165 165 210 $33 11,550 $381,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC application (1840-0807) is affected by the changes to the
NRC selection criteria (Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22, and 656.23), which
will require changes on the application package and technical review
forms. The calculation of burden hours is not affected by the
regulatory changes, but we agreed with a commenter's assertion that our
previous calculations severely underestimated the burden hours and
costs of this collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information OMB Control No. and
Regulatory section collection estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 656.21, 656.22, These proposed 1840-0807. The
and 656.23 regulatory number of
provisions would respondents would
require changing remain constant at
the application 165. The number of
package and total burden hours
technical review for the application
forms to reflect is 11,550 when
the modified averaged over three
selection criteria years. The averaged
for this program. total cost is
$381,150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FLAS application (1840-0867) is affected by the changes to the
FLAS selection criteria (Sec. 657.21), which require changes to the
application package and technical review forms. The calculation of
burden hours is not affected by the regulatory changes, but by the
commenter's assertion that our previous calculations severely
underestimated the burden hours and costs of this collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information OMB Control No. and
Regulatory section collection estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 657.21............... These regulatory 1840-0867. The
changes require number of
changing the respondents will
application package remain constant at
and technical 165. The number of
review forms to total burden hours
reflect the for the application
modified selection is 11,550 when
criteria for this averaged over three
program. years. The averaged
total cost is
$381,150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for each of
these programs to reflect these changes to the information collection
requirements. We invited the public to comment on the ICR but did not
receive any comments other than the comment addressed above.
The collection of information contained in these regulations is
being submitted to OMB for clearance simultaneously with this Final
Rule under the OMB control numbers 1840-0807 and 1840-0867.
Intergovernmental Review
The proposed regulations are not subject to Executive Order 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
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 final 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, 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 Department documents 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 Department documents 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,
[[Page 68757]]
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.
Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education amends 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 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:
(1) Academic engagement.
(2) Acquisition.
(3) Applicant.
(4) Application.
(5) Award.
(6) Budget.
(7) Clock hour.
(8) Contract.
(9) Correspondence course.
(10) Credit hour.
(11) Distance education.
(12) Educational program.
(13) EDGAR.
(14) Enrolled.
(15) Equipment.
(16) Facilities.
(17) Fiscal year.
(18) Full-time student.
(19) Graduate or professional student.
(20) Grant.
(21) Grantee.
(22) Grant period.
(23) Half-time student.
(24) Local educational agency.
(25) National level.
(26) Nonprofit.
(27) Project.
(28) Project period.
(29) Private.
(30) Public.
(31) Regular student.
(32) Secretary.
(33) State educational agency.
(34) Supplies.
(35) 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
multifaceted 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
clock hours per week during the academic year or the equivalent of a
full academic year of language instruction during the summer.
0
5. Add Sec. 655.5 to read as follows:
Sec. 655.5 What are the purposes of the International Educational
Programs?
(a) Each of the programs authorized by part A of title VI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contributes to at least one,
but not necessarily all, of the following purposes:
(1) Provision of support for centers, programs, and fellowships in
institutions of higher education in the United States for producing
increased numbers of trained personnel and research in foreign
languages, area studies, and other international studies.
(2) Development of a pool of international experts to meet national
needs.
(3) Development and validation of specialized materials and
techniques for foreign language acquisition and fluency, emphasizing
(but not limited to) the less commonly taught languages.
(4) Promotion of access to research and training overseas,
including through linkages with overseas institutions.
(5) Advancement of the internationalization of a variety of
[[Page 68758]]
disciplines throughout undergraduate and graduate education.
(6) Support for cooperative efforts promoting access to and the
dissemination of international and foreign language knowledge, teaching
materials, and research, throughout education, government, business,
civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, through the use of
advanced technologies.
(b) The regulations in this part govern the following programs that
are authorized by part A of title VI of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended:
(1) The National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
Area Studies and the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program.
(2) The Language Resource Centers Program.
(3) The Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language
Program.
(4) The International Research and Studies Program.
(c) The following activities authorized by part A of title VI of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contribute to the
coordination of the programs of the Federal Government in the areas of
foreign language, area studies, and other international studies,
including professional international affairs education and research:
(1) The consultation on areas of national need.
(2) The periodic survey of fellows who have participated in the
Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program to determine
postgraduate employment, education, or training.
(d) Each of the programs authorized by part B of title VI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contributes to at least one,
but not necessarily all, of the following purposes:
(1) Increase and promotion of the Nation's capacity for
international understanding and economic enterprise through the
provision of suitable international education and training for business
personnel in various stages of professional development; and develop a
pool of international experts to meet national needs.
(2) Promotion of institutional and noninstitutional educational and
training activities that will contribute to the ability of United
States business to prosper in an international economy.
(e) The regulations in this part govern the following programs that
are authorized by part B of title VI of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended: The Business and International Education Program.
0
6. 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
7. 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 laboratories,
museums, and libraries) that the applicant plans to use are adequate;
and
* * * * *
0
8. Effective August 15, 2025, revise part 656 to read as follows:
PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE
AND AREA STUDIES
Sec.
Subpart A--General
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?
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?
(a) 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--
(1) Teaching of modern foreign languages, especially less commonly
taught languages;
(2) Instruction in fields of study needed to provide full
understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which such languages
are commonly used;
(3) Research and training in international studies and the
international and foreign language aspects of professional and other
fields of study; and
(4) Instruction and research on issues in world affairs that
concern one or more countries.
(b) Through the activities described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the National Resource Centers Program contributes to the
purposes of the programs authorized by part A of title VI of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, listed in Sec. 655.5(a).
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 is a current recipient of 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 for research, teaching, training,
instruction, and project activities must be aligned with both of the
following requirements:
[[Page 68759]]
(1) The area of focus must be a geographic world area or a
geographically designated region that spans multiple world areas.
(2) Research, teaching, training, and instruction in specific
languages, countries, regions, societies, or other units of analysis
related to the area of focus described in this paragraph (1) must be
conducted at the institution.
(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 related to the Center's area of focus available
predominantly to undergraduate students in support of the objectives of
a undergraduate education;
(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 special purpose 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 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.
[[Page 68760]]
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) An applicant must submit a description of the applicant's
policy regarding non-discriminatory hiring practices.
(d) An applicant must submit a description of the applicant's
travel policies, if such policies exist, or a statement that such
policies do not exist.
(e) 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 group that shares the same or
similar 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 individuals,
including relevant staff and faculty, are qualified to administer the
proposed Center and oversee the implementation of project activities,
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 for 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.
(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
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 managed by experts in the applicant's
[[Page 68761]]
area of focus with appropriate professional training.
(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 intended outcomes of the proposed
project are clearly specified, are 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 proposed project is likely to
contribute to meeting national needs related to language and area
studies expertise and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by the
proposed project's intended 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
academic and/or 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 the proposed project's
intended 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 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.
(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 the proposed project's 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 individuals,
including relevant staff and faculty, are qualified to administer the
proposed Center and oversee the implementation of project activities,
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 for 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.
(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 language and area or international studies, appropriate to the
applicant's area of focus, available in educational programs for
undergraduate students.
(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
undergraduate 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 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 would contribute to the
formation of a diverse network of undergraduate Centers through the
training of undergraduate students who matriculate into advanced
language and area studies programs and professional school programs
related to the applicant's area of focus, especially through, but not
limited to, innovative curriculum design, linkages with other
institutions of higher education or organizations, requirements for
student research or study abroad, support for relevant
[[Page 68762]]
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 support high-quality
undergraduate training in the applicant's area of focus through the
provision of basic reference works, journals, and works in translation
but do not constitute an important library collection 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
undergraduate students into post-graduate employment, education, or
training in areas of national need related to language and area studies
knowledge, including into education and training at a variety of other
institutions.
(d) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each
application to determine one or more of the following:
(1) The extent to which the intended 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 proposed project is likely to
contribute to meeting national needs related to language and area
studies expertise and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by the
proposed project's intended 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
academic and/or 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 the proposed project's
intended 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 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.
(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 the proposed project's 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 an additional special
purpose grant for a Center 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 described in Sec. 656.4(a)-(g).
(2) The extent to which the intended 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 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
academic and/or 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 relative to their contribution to the proposed project's
intended 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 both 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 the proposed project's intended outcomes.
[[Page 68763]]
(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 clock 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
related to the Center's area of focus.
(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
related to the Center's area of focus.
(8) Establishing and maintaining linkages with overseas
institutions of higher education, alumni, 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 related to the Center's area of focus.
(10) Creating, expanding, or improving activities or teaching
materials that are intended to increase modern foreign language
proficiency related to the Center's area of focus 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 related to the Center's area
of focus.
(13) Engaging in professional development of the Center's faculty
and staff.
(14) Funding salaries and travel for faculty and staff related to
the Center's area of focus.
(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 grantees have
received prior approval by the Secretary for the associated costs 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) The following limitations on compensation paid to personnel
apply to each award under this part:
(i) Project director. (A) Personnel costs and other related costs,
including the cost of fringe benefits, associated with compensation for
the project director are not allowable if such compensation only
reflects the administrative tasks ordinarily associated with the role.
(B) Personnel costs and other related costs, including the cost of
fringe benefits, associated with compensation for the project director
are allowable with the Secretary's prior approval if such compensation
is directly tied to the implementation of an approved project activity
that requires the project director's expertise.
(ii) Instructors of less commonly taught languages. Personnel costs
and other costs, including the cost of fringe benefits, related to the
compensation of individuals directly engaged in the instruction of a
less commonly taught language are allowable up to 100 percent of the
actual costs associated with approved project activities.
(iii) Other project personnel. Personnel costs and other costs,
including the costs of fringe benefits, related to the compensation of
project personnel who are not described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii)
of this section are allowable up to 50 percent of the costs for a full-
time equivalent position.
(5) Costs for international travel are only allowable if a Center
has obtained prior approval from the Secretary.
(6) Activities must be relevant to the Center's area of focus and
the type of Center (comprehensive or undergraduate).
(7) An undergraduate Center's project and related activities must
predominantly benefit the instruction and training of undergraduate
students.
0
9. Effective August 15, 2025, revise part 657 to read as follows:
PART 657--FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM
Sec.
Subpart A--General
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?
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?
[[Page 68764]]
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?
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?
657.34 What are an institution's responsibilities after the award of
a grant for administering fellowship funding?
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?
(a) 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.
(b) The Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program
contributes to the purposes of the programs authorized by part A of
title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, listed in
Sec. 655.5(a), especially the development of a pool of international
experts to meet national needs.
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 all of the following
requirements:
(1) A geographic world area or a geographically designated region
that spans multiple world areas and serves as the focus of research,
teaching, training, and instruction.
(2) Languages specific to the geographic area of focus.
(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's or Program's plan.
Sec. 657.4 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
A student must satisfy the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e)
of this section during the fellowship period to be eligible to receive
a fellowship from an approved Center or Program, and a student
receiving an academic year fellowship must additionally satisfy the
criteria in paragraph (f) of this section to be eligible:
(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 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 grade point
average, class ranking, or similar measures that the institution may
determine.
(d) 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), 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.
(e) 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 engage in the study of a modern foreign language at the--
(i) Intermediate or advanced level; or
(ii) Beginning level, provided they demonstrate advanced
proficiency in another modern foreign language relevant to their field
of study or obtain the permission of the Secretary.
(3) Dissertation level graduate students must--
(i) Engage in dissertation research abroad or dissertation writing
in the United States;
(ii) Demonstrate advanced proficiency in a modern foreign language
relevant to the dissertation project and the allocation of fellowships;
and
(iii) Use modern foreign language(s) relevant to the allocation of
fellowships in their dissertation research or writing.
(f) The student meets the criteria related to
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 27, 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.