13516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 655, 656, and 657 

RIN 1840–AD94 

[Docket ID ED–2024–OPE–0017] 

National Resource Centers Program 

and Foreign Language and Area 

Studies Fellowships Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to 

amend the regulations that govern the 

National Resource Centers (NRC) 

Program, Assistance Listing Number 

84.015A, and the Foreign Language and 

Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships 

Program, Assistance Listing Number 

84.015B. The proposed regulations 

would clarify interpretations of 

statutory language, redesign the 

selection criteria, and make necessary 

updates based upon program 

management experience. These 

proposed changes would remove 

ambiguity and redundancy in the 

selection criteria and definitions of key 

terms, improve the application process, 

and align the administration of these 

programs with developments in modern 

foreign language and area studies 

education. A brief summary of the 

proposed rule is available on 

Regulations.gov in the docket for the 

rulemaking. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at Regulations.gov. However, if 

you require an accommodation or 

cannot otherwise submit your 

comments via Regulations.gov, please 

contact the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. The Department will not 

accept comments after the comment 

period closes. To ensure that the 

Department does not receive duplicate 

copies, please submit your comments 

only once. Additionally, please include 

the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

Note: The Department’s policy is 

generally to make comments received 

from members of the public available for 

public viewing on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available. Commenters should 

not include in their comments any 

information that identifies other 

individuals or that permits readers to 

identify other individuals. The 

Department will not make comments 

that contain personally identifiable 

information about someone other than 

the commenter publicly available on 

www.regulations.gov for privacy 

reasons. Therefore, commenters should 

be careful to include in their comments 

only information that they wish to make 

publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Duvall, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 5C105, 

Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 

(202) 987–0383. Email: timothy.duvall@

ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of this Regulatory Action: 

The regulations for the NRC and FLAS 

programs were last revised in 2009 (74 

FR 35070) and were impacted by 

subsequent technical corrections made 

to 34 CFR part 655, International 

Education Programs—General 

Provisions, adopted in 2014 (79 FR 

75867). Because these regulations 

provide the foundation for the 

administration of these programs, we 

have reviewed them, evaluated them for 

provisions that, over time, have become 

outdated, unnecessary, or inconsistent 

with other Department regulations as 

well as with established practices for 

administering these programs in the 

Department, and identified ways in 

which they can be updated, 

streamlined, and otherwise improved. 

Specifically, we propose to amend parts 

655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. These changes 

are detailed in the Summary of Major 

Provisions of this Regulatory Action. 

Summary of Major Provisions of this 

Regulatory Action: As discussed in 

greater detail in the Summary of 

Proposed Regulations section of this 

document, the proposed regulations 

would: 

• Make technical updates to refer to 

up-to-date statutory authorities, remove 

outdated terminology, use consistent 

references, and eliminate obsolete crossreferences. 

• Clarify and streamline the selection 

criteria the Secretary may use to make 

discretionary awards under parts 656 

and 657. 

• Add new selection criteria the 

Secretary may use to make discretionary 

grants for special purposes under part 

656. 

• Add definitions for ambiguous 

terms related to program administration, 

including ‘‘areas of national need’’ and 

‘‘diverse perspectives.’’ 

• Add a requirement for a 

geographical area of focus for 

discretionary grants made under parts 

656 and 657. 

• Clarify the differences between 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

National Resource Centers for Foreign 

Language and Area Studies. 

• Add a student eligibility 

requirement for fellowships awarded 

under part 657 based upon a student’s 

educational program. 

• Simplify the administration of 

allocations of fellowships made under 

part 657 by eliminating the institutional 

payment as a component of fellowships 

and allowing fellows to receive a single 

stipend payment. 

Costs and Benefits: The Department 

believes that the benefits of this 

regulatory action would outweigh any 

associated costs to States, local 

educational agencies (LEAs), colleges 

and universities, and other Department 

applicants and grantees. The proposed 

regulations would, in part, update 

terminology to align with applicable 

statutes and regulations. Many of the 

adjustments would support the 

Department, its grantees, or both, in 

selecting high-quality grantees and to 

support those grantees in ensuring the 

effectiveness and improvement of their 

projects. These changes include, for 

example, altering selection criteria to 

allow for a more efficient and effective 

peer review process, as announced in a 

notice inviting applications (NIA), and 

adding and clarifying definitions that 

apply to the programs affected so that 

peer reviewers and applicants have a 

better sense of how application reviews 

are conducted. Please refer to the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis section of 

this document for a more detailed 

discussion of costs and benefits. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed regulations. To ensure that 

your comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final regulations, we 

urge you to clearly identify the specific 

section of the proposed regulations that 

each of your comments addresses and to 

arrange your comments in the same 

order as the proposed regulations. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13517 

We also invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 and their 

overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

the proposed regulations. Please let us 

know of any further ways we could 

reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Department’s programs and 

activities. The Department also 

welcomes comments on any alternative 

approaches to the subjects addressed in 

the proposed regulations. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect public comments about 

the proposed regulations by accessing 

Regulations.gov. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request, we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for the proposed regulations. To 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Background 

Programs authorized under title VI of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), build institutional 

capacity for training and research in 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies; promote access to international 

and foreign language knowledge; 

respond to the ongoing national need for 

individuals with expertise and 

competence in world languages and area 

studies; advance national security by 

developing a pipeline of highly trained 

experts in critical world regions who are 

proficient in a large number of diverse 

modern foreign languages, especially 

but not limited to less commonly taught 

languages; and contribute to developing 

a globally competent multilingual and 

multicultural workforce able to engage 

with people in the United States and 

around the world. 

The NRC Program and the FLAS 

Fellowships Program are the two largest 

programs funded under title VI of the 

HEA. The NRC Program provides grants 

to institutions of higher education (IHE) 

and consortia of IHEs to establish, 

strengthen, and operate comprehensive 

and undergraduate foreign language and 

area studies centers. These centers serve 

as centers of excellence for training and 

teaching in any modern foreign 

language, research, and instruction in 

fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions, or 

countries where the languages are 

commonly used. See 34 CFR part 656; 

20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1). The FLAS 

Fellowships Program awards allocations 

of fellowships, through IHEs or 

consortia of IHEs, to meritorious 

students enrolled in programs that offer 

performance-based instruction in world 

languages in combination with area 

studies, international studies, or the 

international aspects of professional 

studies. See 34 CFR part 657; 20 U.S.C. 

1122(b)(1). Both programs share a 

common focus on modern foreign 

language and area studies education. 

The regulations for these programs 

were last revised in 2009 (74 FR 35070) 

and were impacted by subsequent 

technical corrections made to 34 CFR 

part 655, International Education 

Programs—General Provisions, adopted 

in 2014 (79 FR 75867). We propose to 

amend the regulations that govern the 

NRC Program and the FLAS 

Fellowships Program, and to make 

related amendments and technical 

corrections to 34 CFR part 655. The 

proposed changes would clarify 

interpretations of statutory language, 

redesign the selection criteria, and make 

necessary updates based upon program 

management experience. The proposed 

regulations would remove ambiguity 

and redundancy in the selection criteria 

and definitions of key terms, improve 

the application process, and align the 

administration of these programs with 

developments in modern foreign 

language and area studies education. 

Selection Criteria and Application 

Process. Over many grant cycles, 

administering the NRC and FLAS grant 

competitions using the current selection 

criteria has been unwieldy and 

burdensome for both applicants and 

peer reviewers. The Secretary proposes 

changes to the selection criteria that 

would clarify selection criteria, 

eliminate redundant criteria, reduce the 

burden on applicants and peer 

reviewers, and improve alignment with 

the statute, particularly with regard to 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers. The Secretary proposes 

reducing the comprehensive NRC 

selection criteria from 10 criteria with 

27 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24 

sub-criteria; the undergraduate NRC 

selection criteria from 10 criteria with 

26 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24 

sub-criteria; and the FLAS selection 

criteria from nine criteria with 22 subcriteria to six criteria with 22 subcriteria. The proposed criteria include 

some new criteria for the NRC Program, 

including a ‘‘quality of existing 

academic programs’’ criterion, and also 

for FLAS, including ‘‘project design and 

rationale’’ and ‘‘project planning and 

budget’’ criteria. 

Definitions. The Secretary proposes, 

to remain current with standards in the 

fields of language and area studies, to 

add and remove definitions in 34 CFR 

part 655, including defining ‘‘areas of 

national need’’ and ‘‘consultation on 

areas of national need’’ to better align 

the programs with the statute. The 

Secretary also proposes adding, among 

others, definitions of (a) ‘‘educational 

program abroad’’ and ‘‘diverse 

perspectives’’ to part 655, and (b) add a 

definition of ‘‘stipend’’ to the FLAS 

regulations in part 657. These proposed 

definitions would clarify concepts that 

have proven to be opaque or absent 

during the application and 

administration phases of these grants. 

Alignment with the statute. The 

Secretary proposes to amend the 

regulations to align them more closely 

with the statute and with accepted grant 

administrative practices. The NRC 

Program is intended to operate as a 

national network of centers to advance 

foreign language and area studies 

knowledge and expertise. NRCs work 

together and separately toward a 

common national goal of providing 

resources for teaching, training, and 

research relating to foreign languages 

and area studies. The proposed changes 

would highlight this common national 

goal and renew emphasis on the 

importance of less commonly taught 

languages to the NRC Program. The 

proposed changes would also clarify the 

expectation that all centers should have 

a geographically defined focus, which 

helps centers align their activities with 

areas of national need identified by the 

Secretary and the statute’s mandated 

consultation on national need for 

foreign language and area studies 

knowledge and expertise. The proposed 

changes would draw a clear distinction 

between undergraduate and 

comprehensive NRCs and clarify the 

role that each type of center plays in the 

NRC network. Finally, the proposed 

changes, among other things, would 

clarify student eligibility, include a 

student’s educational program as a 

relevant criterion for determining FLAS 

fellowship eligibility, and define 

‘‘distance education.’’ 

Summary of Proposed Regulations 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the sections of the proposed regulations 

to which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address proposed regulatory 

provisions that are technical or 

otherwise minor in effect. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Part 655 

Section 655.4 What definitions apply 

to the International Education 

Programs? 

Statute: Sections 601 through 613 of 

the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121–1130b) 

provide authority for defining terms 

necessary for the implementation of the 

International Education Programs. 

Current Regulations: Section 655.4 

sets forth definitions for the 

International Education Programs, 

including the NRC Program and FLAS 

Fellowships Program. 

Proposed Regulation: The definitions 

in § 655.4 apply to all International 

Education Programs, including but not 

limited to NRC Program and FLAS 

Fellowships Program. Proposed § 655.4 

would add new definitions, consolidate 

current definitions that apply to 

multiple International Education 

Programs, and remove one term. 

Specifically, the Department proposes to 

add a definition of ‘‘consultation on 

areas of national need,’’ based on the 

process outlined in the statute, as well 

as a definition of ‘‘areas of national 

need.’’ We also propose a definition of 

‘‘diverse perspectives.’’ Additional 

proposed changes would relocate and 

centralize definitions such as ‘‘area 

studies’’ and ‘‘intensive language 

instruction’’ that were previously 

defined in the context of the NRC 

Program. The proposed changes would 

incorporate definitions for ‘‘educational 

program abroad’’ from section 631 of the 

HEA. The proposed changes incorporate 

definitions for ‘‘academic engagement,’’ 

‘‘clock hour,’’ ‘‘correspondence course,’’ 

‘‘credit hour,’’ ‘‘distance education,’’ 

‘‘educational program,’’ ‘‘enrolled,’’ fulltime student,’’ ‘‘graduate or professional 

student,’’ ‘‘half-time student,’’ ‘‘National 

level,’’ ‘‘regular student,’’ and 

‘‘undergraduate student’’ from §§ 600.2 

and 668.2. Finally, the proposed 

changes would remove the definition of 

‘‘critical languages’’ from § 655.4. 

Reasons: The Department proposes to 

remove the definition of ‘‘critical 

languages’’ in current § 655.4, which 

was based on a separate statute (the 

Education for Economic Security Act). 

The proposed definitions of ‘‘areas of 

national need’’ and ‘‘consultation on 

areas of national need are tied more 

closely to the language and goals of the 

program statute. The Department 

believes application of these definitions 

would, as a practical matter, 

acknowledge the statutorily required 

consultation process is sufficient to 

identify languages that could be 

identified as ‘‘areas of national need.’’ A 

list of languages created through this 

process would be substantially the same 

as or identical to the updated list of 

‘‘critical languages’’ required by current 

§ 655.4, eliminating the need for 

development of a separate list of critical 

languages under current § 655.4. 

The new definitions generally would 

acknowledge the Secretary’s ability to 

identify relevant national needs and 

emphasize the importance of the 

consultation process, as well as 

establishing a single common term 

(‘‘consultation on areas of national 

need’’) to be used in the implementation 

of the International Education Programs. 

This would reduce the potential for 

confusion and improve the efficiency of 

program implementation. The proposed 

definition of ‘‘consultation on areas of 

national need’’ also would assist and 

provide additional clarity to NRC 

Program and FLAS Fellowship Program 

applicants when completing their 

required assurances related to national 

needs, which would assist the Secretary 

in identifying the relevant ‘‘areas of 

national need.’’ As noted above, because 

‘‘consultation on areas of national need’’ 

is statutorily required for the grant 

programs funded under title VI of the 

HEA, which include the NRC Program 

and the FLAS Fellowship program, see 

HEA § 601(c), adopting and applying 

that term would be more directly 

tailored to the activities of the grant 

programs authorized under title VI than 

is the current concept of ‘‘critical 

languages,’’ which is based on a 

different statute (the Education for 

Economic Security Act (Pub. L. 98–377) 

and also is used in HEA programs 

outside title VI. 

The Department proposes a definition 

of ‘‘diverse perspectives’’ to clarify the 

statutory requirement in section 602 of 

the HEA that ‘‘activities funded by the 

grant will reflect diverse 

perspectives[,]’’ emphasizing the 

relevance of a variety of viewpoints in 

understanding world regions. The 

proposed change would reduce 

ambiguity by introducing a standard 

interpretation and improve the 

efficiency of program implementation. 

The relocation of definitions for the 

terms ‘‘area studies,’’ ‘‘intensive 

language instruction,’’ and ‘‘educational 

program abroad’’ would provide 

standard definitions applicable to all 

International Education Programs. The 

proposed changes would standardize 

the use of terms that apply to 

postsecondary education generally, by 

adding references to other parts of title 

34 that are also authorized by the HEA. 

Specifically, the incorporation of terms 

defined in §§ 600.2 and 668.2 would 

provide a shared set of terms that would 

more closely align implementation of 

the International Education Programs 

with implementation of the HEA. 

Section 655.31 What general selection 

criteria does the Secretary use? 

Statute: Sections 601 through 607 of 

the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121–1127) provide 

authority for establishing general 

selection criteria necessary for the 

implementation of the International 

Education Programs. 

Current Regulations: Section 

655.31(e)(2)(i) sets forth the factors the 

Secretary considers as part of the 

‘‘adequacy of resources’’ selection 

criterion, specifically whether the 

facilities the applicant plans to use in 

carrying out its proposed project, ‘‘other 

than library,’’ are adequate. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 655.31(e)(2)(i) would expand the types 

of facilities that may be considered 

when evaluating this selection criterion 

to include libraries. 

Reasons: The proposed change would 

not specifically exclude any type of 

facility when assessing the adequacy of 

an applicant’s resources, so an applicant 

would be able to address the adequacy 

of library facilities if these facilities 

were relevant to the proposed project. 

The proposed wording would recognize 

that libraries increasingly fulfill a 

diverse set of functions at IHEs in 

support of teaching, research, and 

engagement. In addition to housing 

various collections and information 

professionals, libraries frequently are 

the sites where specialized information 

technology, media production facilities, 

and other resources are located. 

Part 656 

Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122. 

Current Regulations: Part 656 contains 

the regulations for the NRC Program, 

titled ‘‘National Resource Centers 

Program for Foreign Language and Area 

Studies or Foreign Language and 

International Studies.’’ 

Proposed Regulation: The Department 

proposes to replace part 656 in its 

entirety due to the number of necessary 

changes and the accompanying need to 

reorganize this part to improve 

readability. We propose to combine 

sections that address similar topics, and 

to eliminate duplicative or contradictory 

paragraphs. We propose to rename part 

656 as ‘‘National Resource Centers 

Program for Foreign Language and Area 

Studies’’ to align more closely with the 

headings in 20 U.S.C. 1122 and 1122(a), 

which do not include ‘‘international 

studies.’’ 

Reasons: As described in more detail 

in each of the following sections related 

to part 656, these changes would allow 

the Department to substantially revise 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13519 

the selection criteria and application 

processes for the NRC Program, 

introduce new definitions, revise or 

eliminate existing definitions, align the 

regulations with the statute, and reduce 

the burden associated with the NRC 

Program. 

Section 656.1 What is the purpose of 

the National Resource Centers Program? 

Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(B) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)) provides 

that centers and programs awarded 

grants are national resources for 

teaching modern foreign languages as 

well as for related research and 

instruction in other academic fields. 

Sections 601(a)(4) and (b)(1)(C) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(4) and (b)(1)(C)) 

specifically mention the importance of 

less commonly taught languages for 

programs authorized under title VI of 

the HEA. These sections also highlight 

the importance of enhancing the 

capacity of IHEs in the United States to 

train experts in modern foreign language 

and area studies and produce research 

based upon such expertise. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.1 

describes the purpose of the NRC 

Program. 

Proposed Regulation: We propose to 

expand the introductory language to 

§ 656.1 to require Centers to act 

cooperatively as national resources to 

carry out program purposes. We also 

propose to expand the portion of the 

program description regarding resources 

for teaching to emphasize less 

commonly taught languages. 

Reasons: The Nation’s security, 

stability, and economic vitality depend 

upon the existence of experts in the 

United States who enable robust 

research and training at IHEs. The NRC 

Program exists to ensure that 

institutional capacity at IHEs in the 

United States meets or exceeds this 

threshold. Emphasizing less commonly 

taught languages would signal that the 

NRC Program supports the development 

and maintenance of such capacity for all 

world areas, all modern foreign 

languages, and all academic disciplines 

at all times. Given the unpredictability 

of world events, this broad-based 

support ensures that a pool of experts 

and knowledgeable individuals are 

prepared to face any threats and take 

advantage of any opportunities that 

require knowledge of modern foreign 

languages and area studies topics and 

approaches. 

The proposed changes also would add 

that the NRC Program anticipates that 

grantees will act cooperatively as a 

network of IHEs that jointly serve as 

national resources for teaching, training, 

and research related to modern foreign 

languages and area studies. The 

proposed wording would emphasize the 

core identity and sense of purpose that 

NRCs share. The proposed change 

would not alter eligibility criteria for the 

NRC Program. 

Despite the competitive nature of 

discretionary grants, the NRC Program is 

intended to build institutional capacity 

that broadly benefits the United States 

after the end of a single grant period. 

This effect is magnified when NRCs 

engage in joint activities, form 

partnerships, and build linkages to one 

another and to other postsecondary 

institutions in the United States. This 

approach ensures that a wide range of 

IHEs can contribute to meeting national 

needs related to modern foreign 

language and area studies identified by 

Federal agencies and other needs in the 

education, business, and nonprofit 

sectors. 

Section 656.2 What entities are eligible 

to receive a grant? 

Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(A) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A)) 

authorizes the Secretary to make grants 

to institutions of higher education or 

consortia of such institutions. Section 

602(a)(3)–(4) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(3)–(4)) authorizes the Secretary 

to make additional grants to centers for 

specific purposes, such as maintaining 

important library collections. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.2 

states that an IHE or a consortium of 

IHEs is eligible to receive a grant under 

the NRC Program, but this section does 

not specifically address the eligibility 

for additional grants authorized by 20 

U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4). 

Proposed Regulation: We propose to 

amend the eligibility criteria in § 656.2 

to clarify that only an IHE or a 

consortium of IHEs that has received a 

grant under part 656 as either a 

comprehensive Center or undergraduate 

Center is eligible to receive a grant for 

the purposes described in 20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(3)–(4). 

Reasons: The current regulation does 

not address the eligibility criteria for 

additional grants authorized by 20 

U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4), which are for 

maintaining library collections, and for 

conducting outreach and summer 

institutes, respectively. This creates 

ambiguity regarding the appropriate 

recipients of these grants. The proposed 

regulation would clarify that eligibility 

for these additional grants is limited to 

National Resource Centers, which 

accurately reflects the statute’s 

characterization of these grants as 

additional or special purpose grants for 

Centers, to carry out specific activities 

in addition to those already part of the 

Center’s funded project. 

Section 656.3 What defines a 

comprehensive or undergraduate 

National Resource Center? 

Statute: Section 631(a)(2) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2)) defines 

‘‘comprehensive foreign language and 

area or international studies center.’’ 

Section 631(a)(10) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 

1132(a)(10)) defines ‘‘undergraduate 

foreign language and area or 

international studies center.’’ Under 20 

U.S.C. 1127(b), the Secretary must set 

specific selection criteria to attain the 

objectives of the two types of centers, 

including the degree to which the 

activities of centers and programs 

address the national needs built into 

these definitions. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.7 

contains definitions for comprehensive 

and undergraduate Centers based on 

most, but not all, of the comparable 

definitions in 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) and 

(a)(10). Section 656.7 states that Centers 

provide training at the undergraduate 

level and that comprehensive Centers 

provide graduate and professional 

training in addition to undergraduate 

training. Section 656.3 lists specific 

activities that define all National 

Resource Centers based on the allowable 

activities for all centers in 20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(2). 

Proposed Regulation: The Department 

proposes to consolidate multiple current 

sections into proposed § 656.3, require 

all centers to adopt a geographically 

defined area of focus, and more 

completely define comprehensive and 

undergraduate Centers based on 20 

U.S.C. 1132(a). 

Reasons: The proposed approach 

would more clearly highlight the 

distinct purposes of the two Center 

types and more closely align with the 

statutory language. The definitional 

requirements for the two types of 

centers would address similar topics in 

a parallel format, while aligning with 

the distinct purpose of each type of 

Center and the different capacities of the 

IHEs likely to host these centers. Both 

types of Centers would still be required 

to engage in activities associated with 

the selection criteria described in 20 

U.S.C. 1127(b). These activities include, 

among others, the generation and 

dissemination of information to the 

public, which is more commonly 

described as outreach. 

The current approach accurately 

highlights many similarities between 

the two types of Centers but omits 

certain statutory differences and does 

not adequately distinguish the distinct 

purposes of these types of Centers. For 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

example, current § 656.3(f) states that 

both comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers must employ faculty who 

engage in training and research relevant 

to the center’s focus. The statutory 

definition of ‘‘comprehensive Centers’’ 

in 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) is more precise, 

however, requiring comprehensive 

Centers to employ a critical mass of 

scholars related to a geographic 

concentration. Similarly, current 

§ 656.3(e) prescribes that comprehensive 

and undergraduate Centers both have 

important library collections. However, 

the statute imposes this requirement 

only on comprehensive Centers (20 

U.S.C. 1132(a)(2)), while requiring in 

section 1132(a)(10) that an 

undergraduate Center maintain library 

collections sufficient to support 

undergraduate education. 

Current §§ 656.3 and 656.4 also omit 

certain statutory requirements that 

further clarify the respective roles of 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers. For example, these sections do 

not clearly identify undergraduate 

Centers’ contribution to the national 

interest by serving as a source of 

graduates who matriculate into 

advanced language and area studies 

programs. See 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10). 

These sections also do not mention that, 

pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2), 

comprehensive Centers contribute to the 

national interest through advanced 

research and scholarship. 

The current regulation allows 

international studies centers to declare 

a thematic focus with no geographically 

defined referent. The proposed 

regulation would require all Centers to 

have a geographically defined focus. 

This change in policy would better 

support the program purpose. Although 

20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A) authorizes the 

Secretary to make grants to area studies 

or international studies and programs, 

20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iv) states that 

all centers are expected to serve as 

resources for both area and international 

studies. We do not interpret the phrase 

‘‘area or international studies’’ as a 

binary choice in the proposed 

regulations. Instead, we proposed to 

interpret the statute as describing the 

importance that a Center places on area 

studies relative to international studies 

such that neither approach could be 

completely absent from a center. 

Area studies and international studies 

are not mutually exclusive and should 

be interpreted as mutually reinforcing 

academic approaches that should be 

represented to some degree within each 

Center. According to 20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(1)(B), Centers are expected to be 

national resources for teaching of any 

modern foreign language; instruction in 

fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions, or 

countries in which such language is 

commonly used; research and training 

in international studies, and the 

international and foreign language 

aspects of professional and other fields 

of study; and instruction and research 

on issues in world affairs that concern 

one or more countries. This portion of 

the statute suggests that focus on the 

study of a geographically defined area 

and international studies are 

complementary aspects of all centers. In 

addition, 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)(i)–(ii) 

clearly articulates the 

interconnectedness of these 

characteristics, including a specific 

relationship between modern foreign 

languages and the specific places in 

which those languages are used. 

Area studies, as defined in section 

1132(a), is a broad concept based on the 

comprehensive study of specific 

societies that does not exclude any 

discipline or approach. The inclusion of 

societies in this definition complements 

the program’s interest in modern foreign 

languages and specific places, as 

articulated in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)(i)– 

(ii). International studies approaches 

complement the specificity of area 

studies by drawing attention to patterns, 

trends, and phenomena relevant to 

understanding the larger context in 

which societies exist. It is now 

commonplace for Centers to emphasize 

interregional and global flows of people, 

concepts, and objects in their activities, 

so this proposed change would only 

emphasize how area studies and 

international studies offer 

complementary approaches to 

instruction, research, and training. This 

proposed interpretation also aligns with 

the larger program goals of section 

1122(a)(1)(B). That is, even with a 

geographical focus, Centers would still 

be required to engage in all these 

activities to meet the program’s purpose, 

including support for international 

studies. Centering a geographic world 

area also would help centers align their 

activities to the recommendations 

provided by the ‘‘consultation on areas 

of national need’’ for expertise in 

foreign languages and world regions 

required by 20 U.S.C. 1121(c)(1). A 

geographically defined focus also would 

support the Secretary’s efforts to 

distribute funds in a manner that 

supports the consultation, which 

necessarily generates recommendations 

related to specific language and 

geographically defined world areas 

rather than themes or topics in 

international studies. 

The importance of a geographically 

defined focus for Centers also is evident 

in other portions of the statute. Under 

20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2), a comprehensive 

Center must employ scholars related to 

a ‘‘geographic concentration’’ and offer 

intensive language training in its ‘‘area 

of specialization.’’ Section 1132(a)(10) 

expresses an expectation that 

undergraduate Centers will produce 

graduates who matriculate into 

advanced language and area studies 

programs. Accordingly, requiring a 

geographically defined area of focus for 

both comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers is not incompatible with the 

overall purpose of the program. Under 

the proposed regulations, centers would 

retain the flexibility to define their 

geographic area of focus, which may be 

a traditionally recognized world region, 

a single country, or another 

configuration of space that draws 

attention to world issues, peoples, and 

any related languages outside the 

United States. 

Section 656.4 For what special 

purposes may a Center receive an 

additional grant under this part? 

Statute: Section 602(a)(3)–(4) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4)) 

authorizes the Secretary to make 

additional grants to centers for specific 

purposes, such as maintaining 

important library collections, 

conducting outreach, and hosting 

summer institutes. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.5(b) 

allows the Secretary to make additional 

grants to support linkages, outreach, 

partnerships, and summer institutes 

related to the program’s purpose, in the 

context of addressing activities 

authorized by the statute. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 656.4 would be a standalone section 

addressing the additional grants to 

centers authorized by 20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(3)–(4) and, consistent with the 

statute, would include the maintenance 

of important library collections among 

the list of permissible purposes for such 

grants. 

Reasons: We believe the creation of a 

standalone section that addresses 

additional grants and mirrors the 

language in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4) 

would allow for more efficient 

administration of the NRC program. The 

proposed regulation would clarify that 

these additional grants are for existing 

centers and any such additional grants 

also could be used for maintaining 

appropriate library collections. 

Section 656.6 What definitions apply 

to this program? 

Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the Secretary to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13521 

define terms necessary to make grants 

under the NRC Program. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.7 

defines several terms relevant to the 

NRC Program and several terms that 

relate to multiple programs authorized 

by title VI of the HEA. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 656.6 would define ‘‘critical mass of 

scholars’’ and clarify the definition of 

‘‘Center’’ for purposes of the NRC 

Program. The proposed regulation also 

would remove the definitions of ‘‘area 

studies,’’ ‘‘comprehensive Center,’’ 

‘‘intensive language instruction,’’ and 

‘‘undergraduate Center’’ all of which 

would be relocated to part 655. 

Reasons: Reducing the number of 

definitions in proposed § 656.6, and 

clarifying those that remain, would 

improve the efficiency of NRC Program 

administration and reduce the burden 

on applicants and grantees. Defining the 

statutory term ‘‘critical mass of 

scholars’’ would provide guidance to 

applicants and reduce ambiguity in the 

regulations. It would also provide 

substantial flexibility in the describing 

qualifications, density, and overall 

significance of scholars. 

Proposed § 656.6 also would clarify 

that a ‘‘Center’’ refers to a grantee under 

the NRC Program, regardless of its title 

or organizational form on campus. 

Grantees (or ‘‘centers’’ for purposes of 

the NRC Program) are distinct 

administrative subunits within an IHE. 

Finally, terms related to the 

administration of multiple International 

Education Programs authorized by title 

VI of the HEA would be relocated to 

part 655, which applies to all 

International Education Programs. 

Section 656.7 Severability 

Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122 authorizes the 

Secretary to define terms necessary to 

make grants under the NRC Program. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations do not address severability. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

regulation would add a severability 

provision. 

Reasons: The Department seeks to 

clarify its intent that, with regard to 

severability, each of the regulations in 

34 CFR part 656 and its subparts serves 

one or more important, related, but 

distinct, purposes. To best serve these 

purposes, we included this 

administrative provision in the 

regulations to make clear that the 

regulations are designed to operate 

independently of each other and to 

convey the Department’s intent that the 

potential invalidity of one provision or 

any of its subparts should not affect the 

remainder of the provisions. 

Application and Selection Processes 

(§§ 656.10, 656.11, and 656.20) 

Statute: Section 602(e) of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires institutions 

seeking a grant under this program to 

follow an application process designed 

by the Secretary. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.10 

allows an applicant to submit a 

combined application for the NRC and 

FLAS programs. Section 656.20 

describes which selection criteria are 

used and how the Department 

communicates the point values for the 

selection criteria. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

regulation would update the application 

and selection process to provide more 

accurate guidance based on current 

program management practices. The 

proposed change would eliminate the 

possibility of submitting to both the 

NRC and FLAS Fellowships Program 

simultaneously (though applicants still 

could continue to submit separate 

applications under each program). 

Proposed § 656.10 would affirm that the 

NRC Program follows the Department’s 

standard procedures for grant 

applications, by directing potential 

applicants to the application notice in 

the Federal Register for guidance. 

Proposed § 656.11 would clarify the 

assurances and materials required in 

every application for the NRC Program. 

Proposed § 656.20 would add additional 

information about the selection process, 

including a description of the peer 

review and ranking process, and the 

process that would apply to the grants 

authorized under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)– 

(4). 

Reasons: The NRC and FLAS 

Fellowships Programs have long been 

identified by separate Assistance Listing 

Numbers, and applications for these 

programs have been evaluated using 

program-specific selection criteria. The 

Department began using Grants.gov to 

receive applications for these two 

programs for the fiscal year 2022 

competition. In addition to the 

substantive differences between the 

programs and the selection criteria, 

Grants.gov cannot accept one 

application for two programs with 

individual Assistance Listing Numbers. 

Given these substantive differences and 

technical limitations, removing the 

option for simultaneous submission 

would improve the efficiency of 

program administration. 

The additional information on 

assurances and required application 

materials in proposed § 656.11 would 

clarify statutory requirements and 

improve the efficiency of program 

administration. Section 602(e) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires an 

explanation of how grant funded 

activities reflect diverse perspectives, as 

defined in proposed § 655.4, and how 

applicants will encourage government 

service in areas of national need, as well 

as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and non-profit sectors. The 

Department already has required 

applicants for the NRC Program to 

submit these assurances for multiple 

competitions. The proposed regulation 

would emphasize the importance of this 

requirement. 

Proposed § 656.20 would promote 

transparency and support efficient 

program management by adding a more 

detailed description of the selection 

process. The proposed change also 

would clarify that applications for 

grants to centers for special purposes 

authorized in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4) 

would be evaluated using a newly 

developed set of selection criteria 

specifically designed for this purpose. 

Under proposed § 656.20, experts in 

relevant fields would review 

applications for comprehensive Centers, 

undergraduate Centers, and special 

purpose grants to determine excellence 

based on the appropriate selection 

criteria. Applications with similar areas 

of geographic focus would be grouped 

together. Peer reviewers would score 

each application separately, and then 

applications from each group would be 

selected for funding in rank order 

within each group based on the peer 

reviewers’ scores. If a lack of funds 

prevented funding all highly ranked 

applications in each group, the 

proposed regulation would permit the 

Department to consider the degree to 

which applications were likely to serve 

any competition priorities published in 

the application notice that were derived 

from the ‘‘consultation on areas of 

national need’’ or that were related to 

specific countries, world areas, or 

languages. 

Variations on the proposed peer 

review process have been included in 

the application notice for several grant 

cycles. This proposed change would 

increase transparency and benefit new 

applicants that may be unfamiliar with 

the selection process. It would also 

affirm the importance of supporting the 

study of world areas or languages 

identified through the consultation 

process or priorities established by the 

Secretary. 

Selection Criteria and Program Priorities 

(§§ 656.21, 656.22, 656.23, 656.24) 

Statute: Section 602(a)(1)(B) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)) describes 

centers and programs awarded grants 

under this section as national resources 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

for teaching modern foreign languages 

and providing related research and 

instruction in other academic fields. 

Section 602(a)(3)–(4) of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4)) authorizes the 

Secretary to make additional grants to 

these centers for specific purposes, such 

as maintaining important library 

collections. Section 607(a) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1127(a)) requires separate 

grant selection criteria for 

comprehensive Centers and for 

undergraduate Centers. Section 607(b) 

of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1127(b)) requires 

the Secretary to set selection criteria 

that will enable reviewers to determine 

excellence relative to the program’s 

objectives. This section also requires the 

Secretary to consider specific selection 

criteria, such as the degree to which 

activities of centers and programs 

address national needs. 

Current Regulation: Section 656.21 

describes the selection criteria for 

comprehensive Centers. Section 656.22 

describes the selection criteria for 

undergraduate Centers. Existing 

regulations do not describe selection 

criteria for additional grants made to 

centers for specific purposes mentioned 

in the statute. Section 656.23 describes 

the possible funding priorities for the 

NRC Program. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

changes to the selection criteria would 

add clarity, eliminate redundancy, and 

reduce the burden on applicants while 

improving alignment with the 

authorizing statute. The current 

selection criteria for comprehensive 

Centers are comprised of ten criteria and 

27 specific sub-criteria, excluding 

competitive preference priorities. The 

current selection criteria for 

undergraduate Centers are comprised of 

ten criteria and 26 specific sub-criteria, 

excluding competitive preference 

priorities. The proposed changes would 

reduce the number of criteria for both 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers to six and reduce the number of 

sub-criteria to 24. The proposed changes 

also would add a new set of selection 

criteria for the additional grants made to 

Centers for specific purposes authorized 

under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(3)–(4). 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a)–(c) and 

656.22(a)–(c) would require applicants 

to describe the current state of 

administrative operations, academic 

programs, educational resources, 

outreach and engagement initiatives, 

and other relevant activities. Proposed 

§§ 656.21(d)–(g) and 656.22(d)–(g) 

would ask applicants to describe their 

goals and plans for the grant period. 

Proposed § 656.23 would add selection 

criteria for additional special purpose 

grants authorized by the statute. 

Proposed § 656.24 would rephrase the 

current list of priorities in § 656.23, add 

new priorities related to the teaching of 

specific modern foreign languages, the 

‘‘consultation on areas of national 

need,’’ and the type of center, and it 

would remove a priority related to the 

types of center activities. 

Reasons: The proposed revisions to 

the selection criteria are designed to 

provide greater alignment with the NRC 

Program statute. As described further 

below, focusing proposed §§ 656.21(a)– 

(c) and 656.22(a)–(c) on an applicant’s 

current state of operations would help 

us select grantees that are most likely to 

meet the minimum characteristics of 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers as defined in the statute and 

these proposed regulations. Proposed 

§§ 656.21(d)–(f) and 656.22(d)–(f) would 

require applicants to address plans to 

enhance their institutional capacity and 

conduct other project activities during 

the grant’s performance period. The 

proposed arrangement of selection 

criteria would streamline the structure 

of the application narrative. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a) and 656.22(a) 

would add a criterion for ‘‘Center scope, 

personnel and operations.’’ This 

proposed criterion would combine and 

streamline elements of the selection 

criteria found in the current §§ 656.21(b) 

and 656.21(d) for comprehensive 

Centers and §§ 656.22(b) and 656.22(d) 

for undergraduate Centers. The 

proposed sections would continue to 

address the core operations of the 

proposed center, including staffing 

arrangement, governance, 

nondiscriminatory employment 

practices, and institutional 

commitment. Grouping sub-criteria 

related to these topics into a single 

category and clarifying that these subcriteria refer specifically to the 

administrative unit seeking a 

designation as a National Resource 

Center under this program would 

reduce the confusion among applicants 

regarding the appropriate scope for this 

category. For example, a discussion of 

non-discriminatory employment 

practices should address practices 

specific to the proposed center rather 

than only providing general statements 

about practices at the institution as a 

whole, except to provide necessary 

context for the proposed Center’s 

operations. The proposed category also 

would address topics that the current 

selection criteria do not address, such as 

the quality of existing academic 

programs and the impact of existing 

activities and resources. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a) and 656.22(a) 

would require applicants to explain 

how the focus of a proposed 

comprehensive Center or undergraduate 

Center, respectively, aligns with a 

geographic world area and existing 

opportunities for training, research, and 

instruction at the applicant institution. 

This approach would benefit applicants 

because we recognize that applicants 

may propose novel or distinctive 

approaches grounded in research, so 

they would be able to clearly explain 

the proposed center’s area of focus to 

reviewers and describe the rationale for 

it. 

As noted above, proposed §§ 656.21(a) 

and 656.22(a) also would combine 

elements of the selection criteria found 

in the current §§ 656.21(b) and 

656.21(d) for comprehensive Centers 

and 656.22(b) and 656.22(d) for 

undergraduate Centers, respectively. 

The proposed criteria would continue to 

address staff qualifications and 

professional development, 

nondiscriminatory employment 

practices, oversight arrangements, and 

institutional commitment. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a)(2) and 

656.22(a)(2) would limit consideration 

of personnel qualifications to the 

position of project director and the 

proposed Center’s staff, and focus on 

administrative capacity, without 

extending consideration to teaching 

faculty and other staff as under current 

§§ 656.21(b)(1) and 656.22(b)(1). 

Applicants typically have large numbers 

of teaching faculty, most of whom are 

not directly involved in the 

administration of a proposed Center. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(b)(3)–(4) and 

656.22(b)(3)–(4) would require 

applicants to describe the qualifications 

of teaching faculty to demonstrate the 

quality of academic programs, which 

more closely aligns with the major 

responsibilities of most teaching faculty. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a)(3) and 

656.22(a)(3) would specifically require 

consortia applicants to provide a 

rationale for the formation of a 

consortium, which would allow 

reviewers to evaluate the administrative 

impact of the consortium agreement. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(a)(4) and 

656.22(a)(4) would require applicants to 

describe financial, administrative, and 

other support specifically for the 

proposed Center rather than for the 

entire relevant subject area as under 

current §§ 656.21(d) and 656.22(d). 

Reported amounts of financial support 

are subject to wide variation for reasons 

unrelated to an institution’s actual level 

of commitment. Labor and other costs 

vary substantially by geographic 

location within the United States. 

Financial support for students may 

reflect an IHE’s tuition rates, which vary 

widely across institutions. For example, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13523 

an institution that charges very modest 

tuition and routinely waives all tuition 

and mandatory fees for students in an 

area studies program may report a lower 

level of total financial support for 

students under the current selection 

criteria than an institution that charges 

much higher tuition and only waives a 

small portion of tuition for a similar 

population of students. The proposed 

change would allow reviewers to 

evaluate institutional support that is 

directly relevant to the administration of 

the applicant’s proposed project and the 

resources that will support the applicant 

to conduct project activities. The other 

proposed selection criteria provide 

alternative opportunities to demonstrate 

the effects of an institution’s financial 

support for the proposed Center’s area 

of focus in terms of the availability and 

quality of various educational resources, 

such as teaching staff, library resources, 

linkages with institutions abroad, 

outreach activities, and student support. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(b) and 656.22(b) 

would add a criterion for ‘‘Quality of 

existing academic programs.’’ This 

proposed criterion would combine 

elements of the selection criteria found 

in the current §§ 656.21(f)–(h) and 

656.22(f)–(h) for the comprehensive 

Centers and undergraduate Centers, 

respectively. The proposed criteria 

would continue to address elements of 

curriculum design, language instruction, 

non-language area studies instruction, 

but the proposed category would allow 

applicants to address these elements in 

a more integrated manner, emphasizing 

how these elements of academic 

excellence are closely interconnected. 

Overall, the proposed changes would 

explicitly require applicants to describe 

distinctive strengths in instruction and 

curriculum design, so applicants would 

be able to highlight features of national 

significance. Proposed §§ 656.21(b)(1) 

and 656.22(b)(1) would continue to 

emphasize the degree to which 

intentionally interdisciplinary 

approaches to instruction, training, and 

research are indicators of excellence for 

the NRC Program. Proposed 

§§ 656.21(b)(3) and 656.22(b)(3) would 

require applicants to describe whether 

applicants integrate performance goals 

into language instruction and how 

applicants determine whether those 

goals are being met. This sub-criterion 

would acknowledge that the design, 

implementation, and ongoing 

improvement of language instruction is 

an indicator of excellence. 

The proposed changes in §§ 656.21(b) 

and 656.22(b) also use the definitional 

characteristics that appear in the statute 

as the basis for distinguishing more 

clearly between the complementary 

purposes of the academic programs 

associated with comprehensive Centers 

and the academic programs of 

undergraduate Centers. Proposed 

§ 656.21(b)(1) would require applicants 

for a comprehensive Center to 

demonstrate that the applicant’s 

institution or consortium of institutions 

serve undergraduate, graduate, and 

professional students through relevant 

educational programs. Proposed 

§ 656.22(b)(1) would require applicants 

for an undergraduate Center to 

demonstrate that the institution or 

consortium of institutions primarily 

serves undergraduate students through 

educational programs as an outgrowth 

of the institution’s mission and identity 

as an institution focused predominantly 

or even exclusively on undergraduate 

education. In this context, an institution 

‘‘predominantly’’ serves undergraduate 

students when baccalaureate or higher 

degrees represent at least 50 percent of 

all degrees but where fewer than 50 

master’s degrees or 20 doctoral degrees 

were awarded in the most recent year 

preceding the application deadline for 

which data is available. These proposed 

criteria would improve the selection of 

all Centers described in 20 U.S.C. 

1122(a)(1)(A), including a diverse 

network of undergraduate Centers that 

are distinct from the comprehensive 

Centers. These proposed criteria would 

not require the existence of any specific 

educational programs at applicant 

institutions. 

The differences between 

comprehensive Centers and 

undergraduate Centers also would 

appear in other criteria. Proposed 

§ 656.21(b)(2) would require 

comprehensive Centers to demonstrate 

the existence of intensive language 

instruction, which is a characteristic of 

a comprehensive Center mentioned in 

the proposed § 656.21(b)(4). Proposed 

§ 656.22(b)(4) would address the 

relevant faculty, scholars, instructors, 

and other academic personnel that 

support educational programs at the 

applicant institution, but § 656.21(b)(4) 

would require comprehensive Center 

applicants to demonstrate the existence 

of a critical mass of expertise relevant to 

the proposed Center’s area of focus. In 

addition to addressing definitional 

characteristics from the statute, this 

criterion would also allow applicants to 

demonstrate that faculty have the 

capacity to support graduate and 

professional programs rather than only 

undergraduate programs. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(c) and 656.22(c) 

would add a criterion for ‘‘Impact of 

existing activities and resources.’’ This 

proposed criterion would combine 

elements of the selection criteria found 

in the current §§ 656.21(c), 656.21(e), 

and 656.21(i) for comprehensive 

Centers, and §§ 656.22(c), 656.22(e), and 

656.22(i) for undergraduate Centers. The 

proposed criterion would require 

applicants to describe how the 

applicants’ educational resources, 

efforts to engage various audiences, and 

educational programs demonstrate that 

proposed centers make distinctive 

contributions at the national level. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(c)(3) and 

656.22(c)(3) would continue to affirm 

that effective outreach and engagement 

involving a wide range of audiences and 

partners are crucial elements of the 

NRC. The proposed wording both 

streamlines the discussion of outreach 

efforts and allows applicants to describe 

other audiences. The proposed change 

would also emphasize that the existence 

of outreach and engagement programs 

alone does not speak to their efficacy. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(c)(4) and 

656.22(c)(4) would closely resemble the 

current §§ 656.21(c)(3)–(4) and 

656.22(c)(3)–(4) by requiring applicants 

to respond to a criterion mandated by 

the statute that addresses how 

applicants currently address national 

needs for language and area studies 

expertise and knowledge identified by 

Federal agencies, as well as other needs 

identified in other sectors, including the 

education, business, and non-profit 

sectors. 

Proposed §§ 656.21(c)(1)–(2) would 

further clarify that comprehensive 

Centers and affiliated individuals are 

expected to make significant 

contributions to research and the 

provision of access to educational 

resources that enable different types of 

research. As employed in proposed 

§ 656.21(c)(1), we would interpret the 

‘‘national interest’’ as broadly as 

possible to reflect the statute’s interest 

in supporting the security, stability, and 

economic vitality of the United States, 

which includes the recognition that the 

production of advanced research about 

world regions is critical for ensuring 

that IHEs remain globally competitive 

within the global landscape of higher 

education. 

Consistent with 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2), 

proposed § 656.21(c)(2) would require 

comprehensive Centers to maintain 

‘‘important’’ library collections that 

would support the comprehensive 

Center’s activities. The proposed subcriterion would specify that important 

library collections include distinctive 

holdings that do not duplicate materials 

widely available at other libraries, 

especially in light of the increasing 

importance of digital access to scholarly 

monographs and journals. Including the 

concept of ‘‘access’’ would make clear 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

that important collections are 

collections that are used by researchers, 

including those not based at institutions 

of higher education. Whether through 

the digitization of special collections or 

access policies, applicants would be 

required to describe the degree to which 

they make their collections available to 

others through various means. Proposed 

§§ 656.22(c)(1)–(2) would adapt these 

sub-criteria to the distinct purpose of 

undergraduate Centers. This proposed 

sub-criterion would remove the explicit 

consideration of financial support for 

acquisition and library staff in current 

§§ 656.21(e)(1) and 656.22(e)(1), as well 

as direct consideration of cooperative 

arrangements and databases in current 

656.21(e)(2) and 656.22(e)(2). Although 

financial support is critical for the longterm viability of academic libraries, 

such support is less directly relevant for 

reviewers to determine the resources 

and expertise that will be available 

during the grant’s performance period. 

The proposed sub-criteria would 

directly address library staffing rather 

than financial support for staffing. 

Online databases and other electronic 

materials are now commonplace in 

library collections, so they do not need 

to be singled out as resources apart from 

a library’s normal collections. Moreover, 

the concept of an ‘‘important’’ library 

collection is sufficiently broad that 

applicants for comprehensive Centers 

may include any or all of these 

considerations in their response to the 

proposed sub-criterion. 

In contrast to proposed §§ 656.21(a)– 

(c) and 656.22(a)–(c) that would focus 

on the applicants’ current operations, 

proposed §§ 656.21(d)–(g) and 

656.22(d)–(g) would require applicants 

to describe their goals and plans for the 

grant period. Proposed §§ 656.21(d) and 

656.22(d) would add a criterion for 

‘‘Project design and rationale.’’ This 

criterion would require applicants to 

explain the overall vision for their 

projects and how their projects are 

intended to meet the purposes of the 

NRC Program. This proposed addition 

would complement the criteria 

proposed in §§ 656.21(e) and 656.22(e), 

which would address plans for activities 

and budgets, and the criteria in 

proposed §§ 656.21(f) and 656.22(f), 

which would address plans for project 

evaluation. Proposed §§ 656.21(e)–(f) 

and 656.22(e)–(f) would emphasize that 

applicants must select activities, 

allocate funds, and determine whether 

intended project outcomes are attained 

in an intentional manner that is 

responsive to institutional contexts and 

aligned with project goals. The changes 

also would emphasize in this context 

that evaluation plans must be simple, 

cost-effective, and focused on high level 

outcomes rather than on tracking 

expenses or the implementation of 

individual activities. 

These three interrelated criteria 

would require applicants to explain the 

intended outcomes for their projects, 

specific activities and how they would 

align with the intended outcomes, and 

the evaluative process that would help 

determine whether those intended 

outcomes were being realized during the 

grant period. These criteria would 

enable peer reviewers to determine the 

excellence of the proposed project in 

relation to the current state described in 

proposed §§ 656.21(a)–(c) and 

656.22(a)–(c). 

Proposed §§ 656.21(d)(4) and 

656.22(d)(4) would require applicants to 

explain how diverse perspectives and a 

wide range of views required by the 

statute would be represented in the 

project. This sub-criterion would allow 

expert peer reviewers to evaluate how 

effectively the proposed project would 

address a statutory mandate that project 

activities reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views on world 

regions and international affairs and 

generate debate on world regions and 

international affairs. This approach 

would complement the current 

requirement for applicants to submit an 

assurance on this topic by allowing 

applicants to receive expert feedback, 

which they currently do not. The 

proposed sub-criterion also would 

provide additional guidance to 

applicants that the discussion of diverse 

perspectives should be directly relevant 

to the proposed project rather than a 

general statement about institutional 

practices. This approach would ensure 

that high scoring applicants would be 

likely to meet the statutory expectation 

at the time of application and 

throughout the grant’s performance 

period. 

The proposed selection criteria would 

also eliminate certain elements of the 

current selection criteria not addressed 

above. Current §§ 656.21(h)(3) and 

656.22(h)(3) specifically include the 

extent to which the institution 

facilitates student access to other 

institutions’ study abroad and summer 

language programs. The proposed 

selection criteria would not include 

identical provisions. Because proposed 

§§ 656.21(b)and 656.22(b) require 

applicants to address the extent to 

which an institution makes high-quality 

training in modern foreign language and 

area or international studies available, 

however, the proposed regulations 

would not preclude discussing student 

access to other institutions’ study 

abroad and summer language programs 

in this context. The proposed 

regulations would eliminate current 

§§ 656.21(j) and 656.22(j), ‘‘Degree to 

which priorities are served,’’ as the 

Secretary may award points for 

competitive preference priorities 

without including such a category in the 

selection criteria. See generally 34 CFR 

75.105(c). Although the Department has 

never interpreted the regulations to 

allow it, moreover, removing priorities 

from the selection criteria also avoids 

the appearance of allowing applicants to 

receive points twice for responding to 

the same competitive preference priority 

(once through the selection criteria, and 

once for responding to the priority). 

This proposed change would not alter 

the current approach to competitive 

preference priorities. Current 

§§ 656.21(c)(2) and 656.22(c)(2) require 

that an applicant’s evaluation plan 

produce quantifiable, outcome-measureoriented data. The proposed regulations 

would eliminate this explicit 

requirement. Instead, proposed 

§§ 656.21(f) and 656.22(f) would require 

applicants to describe a more holistic 

approach to evaluation, including the 

qualifications of the evaluator(s) and an 

evaluation plan that is appropriate for 

the grant project. Although many 

performance-related data are 

quantifiable, not all data collected for 

evaluation purposes are quantifiable. 

Qualitative data may be a component of 

an evaluation plan. The proposed 

regulations also would include a 

requirement to describe plans to obtain 

performance feedback and periodic 

assessment of progress toward meeting 

intended outcomes, so the proposed 

approach incorporates an interest in 

project outcomes. The proposed 

regulations would provide greater 

flexibility to applicants when designing 

an evaluation plan. 

By separating the award of special 

project grants from the award of center 

grants, the addition of proposed 

§ 656.23 would streamline the 

Department’s implementation of the 

statute. Proposed § 656.23 would be 

very similar to proposed §§ 656.21(d)–(f) 

and 656.22(d)–(f), which focus on the 

purpose and activities related to an 

applicants’ project, but because only 

Centers selected for funding under the 

NRC Program would be eligible for these 

additional grants, applicants would not 

be required to submit duplicative 

information about the current state of 

the applicant institution. Proposed 

§ 656.23 would make clear that 

additional special purpose grants are 

intended to allow applicants to achieve 

a significant outcome in addition to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13525 

funding typically provided under the 

NRC Program and cannot be used to 

supplant funding for other project 

activities. 

Proposed § 656.24 would rephrase the 

current list of priorities in § 656.23, add 

three new priorities, and drop a priority. 

The rephrasing of priorities in current 

§ 656.23 would enhance clarity by 

removing redundant or unnecessary 

words. Given the importance of the 

instruction of modern foreign languages, 

especially less commonly taught 

languages in the program statute, adding 

a priority related to the teaching of 

specific modern foreign languages 

would improve the Secretary’s ability to 

meet the program purpose by 

prioritizing instruction in certain 

languages, if the need arises. The new 

priority related to the ‘‘consultation on 

national need’’ would allow the 

Secretary to select a priority that 

explicitly reflects the results of the 

consultation with Federal agencies. 

While such consultation is required by 

the statute, this proposed change would 

enable the Secretary to easily identify a 

priority for a specific language or world 

region as aligned with the national 

needs recognized by Federal agencies, 

which would better integrate the 

required consultation and the NRC 

Program. The proposed regulation 

would drop a priority related to the 

specific focus of a center but would add 

a similar priority that addresses both the 

geographically defined focus and topical 

focus of a center. This priority would 

align with the requirement that all 

centers declare a geographic area of 

focus incorporated into these proposed 

regulations. The combination of 

geographic focus and topical focus 

would ensure the Secretary is able to 

appropriately prioritize awards, if 

needed. 

Section 656.30 What activities and 

costs are allowable? 

Statute: Section 602(a)(2) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(2)) states that grants 

made under this section may pay all or 

part of the cost of establishing or 

operating a relevant center or program. 

Current Regulation: Sections 656.3, 

656.5, and 656.30 explain allowable 

costs and activities for the NRC 

Program. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 656.30 would combine current 

§ 656.30 with current §§ 656.3 and 656.5 

to make one comprehensive allowable 

costs and activities section. Proposed 

§ 656.30 would reorder the list of 

examples of allowable activities 

included in the current regulation and 

would add several new limitations on 

costs, including a prohibition on 

compensation for project directors and a 

limitation on personnel costs for 

individuals who are not directly 

engaged in the instruction of less 

commonly taught languages. The 

proposed regulation would also add an 

explicit pre-approval requirement for 

costs associated with international 

travel. The proposed regulation would 

preserve the current requirement that 

grant funds may not supplant funds 

normally used by applicants to support 

the same activities. 

Reasons: Proposed § 656.30 would 

reduce repetition and streamline the 

description of allowable costs and 

activities by combining three sections 

into one comprehensive section. In 

keeping with the statutory direction in 

20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(2), NRC Program 

grants may pay all or part of the cost 

associated with establishing or 

operating a center, so the NRC 

Program’s primary limitations on 

allowable activities would remain the 

scope of funded applications and 

whether individual activities serve the 

purpose of establishing or operating a 

center. The listed activities and their 

associated costs would continue to serve 

as examples of activities and costs 

typically deemed allowed for the NRC 

Program. The list would highlight 

activities that are closely aligned with 

the program purpose. 

The proposed changes would revise 

and reorder the combined list of 

activities to enhance clarity by 

highlighting activities that directly serve 

the program purpose. In addition, the 

proposed regulation would add to the 

list of allowable activities support for 

instructors of the less commonly taught 

languages, opportunities for the study of 

the less commonly taught languages, 

dissemination of information about the 

Center’s area of focus to various 

audiences through domestic outreach 

activities, efforts to increase language 

proficiency for students in STEM fields, 

establishing and maintaining linkages 

with overseas institutions of higher 

education, and conducting projects that 

encourage and prepare students to seek 

employment relevant to the Center’s 

area of focus in areas of national need. 

The proposed regulation would also 

expand the scope of listed activities 

related to libraries to include the 

maintenance of library collection and 

efforts to enhance access to library 

collections. Centers frequently engage in 

many of these activities. 

The proposed regulation would 

preserve the current requirement that 

grant funds may not supplant funds 

normally used by applicants to support 

the same activities, to ensure that grant 

funds are a catalyst for institutional 

investment in a critical area of the 

national postsecondary education 

infrastructure. The proposed regulation 

also would add several new limitations 

on costs to limit or prohibit costs that 

would be unlikely to serve the purposes 

of the NRC Program, based upon 

substantial experience in administering 

the program. These limitations would 

include a prohibition on compensation 

for project directors and a limitation on 

personnel costs for individuals who are 

not directly engaged in the instruction 

of less commonly taught languages. The 

proposed regulation would also add an 

explicit pre-approval requirement for 

costs associated with international 

travel. Experience with administration 

of the NRC Program has demonstrated 

that these limitations and the preapproval requirement are prudent and 

necessary to ensure that grant funds are 

being spent effectively in service of the 

program’s purpose. These limitations 

also follow longstanding guidance and 

technical assistance to the grantee 

community. 

Part 657 

Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1122. 

Current Regulations: Part 657 contains 

the regulations for the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. 

Proposed Regulation: The Department 

proposes to replace part 657 in its 

entirety due to the number of necessary 

changes and the accompanying need to 

reorganize these parts to improve 

readability. Sections that address 

similar topics would be combined, and 

duplicative or contradictory paragraphs 

would be eliminated. 

Reasons: These changes would allow 

the Department to substantially revise 

the selection criteria and application 

processes for the FLAS Fellowships 

Program, introduce new definitions, 

revise or eliminate existing definitions, 

align the regulations with the statute, 

and reduce the burden associated with 

the FLAS Fellowships Program. 

Section 657.1 What is the Foreign 

Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

Program? 

Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1)) authorizes the 

Secretary to make grants to institutions 

of higher education or consortia of such 

institutions for the purpose of paying 

stipends to individuals undergoing 

advanced training in centers or 

programs approved by the Secretary. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.1 

describes the FLAS Fellowships 

Program as a program that provides 

IHEs with allocations of fellowships that 

are awarded to eligible students. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.1 would clarify that the FLAS 

Fellowships Program is an institutional 

program that enables eligible IHEs to 

compete for an allocation of fellowships 

that are distributed to eligible students 

on a competitive basis. 

Reasons: The proposed change would 

reduce confusion by eliminating details 

about student eligibility criteria from 

this section, because these eligibility 

criteria would be addressed at greater 

length elsewhere. The proposed change 

would also highlight the advanced 

nature of the interdisciplinary training 

that the statute envisions for the fellows, 

to satisfy the statutory purpose of 

creating a pool of trained personnel and 

experts in foreign language and area 

studies to meet national needs 

identified by Federal agencies, as well 

as other needs identified in other 

sectors, including the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors. See, 

e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1121(b)(1)(B). The 

ongoing and sustained cultivation of 

expertise through training provided by 

IHEs across the full range of world areas 

and modern foreign languages helps 

ensure the security, stability, and 

economic vitality of the United States. 

The fellowships also provide invaluable 

support for instruction and training in 

area studies and foreign language at the 

IHEs that receive allocations of 

fellowships. 

Institutional Eligibility and the 

Requirements for an Allocation of 

Fellowships (§§ 657.2 and 657.3) 

Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1)) authorizes the 

Secretary to make grants to institutions 

of higher education or consortia of such 

institutions for the purpose of paying 

stipends to individuals undergoing 

advanced training in any center or 

program approved by the Secretary. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.2 

describes the eligibility criteria for IHEs. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.2 would clarify that only IHEs or 

a consortium of IHEs are eligible for an 

allocation of fellowships under the 

FLAS program. Proposed § 657.3 would 

address all additional instructional and 

administrative requirements for grantees 

under this program. 

Reasons: The proposed regulation 

would align the institutional eligibility 

determination in proposed § 657.2 with 

the statute by clearly stating that all 

IHEs are eligible to apply for an 

allocation of fellowships. Proposed 

§ 657.3 would provide a more concise 

list of instructional and administrative 

requirements for institutional grantees 

under the FLAS Fellowships Program 

than the current § 657.2. Proposed 

§ 657.3(b) would also improve 

transparency by clearly linking the 

administration of the allocation of 

fellowships with the applicants’ 

application materials. As in the current 

regulations, proposed § 657.3 specifies 

that applicants would not need to be 

grantees under the NRC Program to be 

eligible to receive an allocation of 

fellowships under the FLAS 

Fellowships Program, even though the 

programs are complementary. 

Section 657.4 Who is eligible to 

receive a fellowship? 

Statute: Section 602(b)(2) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(2)) describes the 

FLAS Fellowships Program eligibility 

criteria. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.3 

describes the fellowship eligibility 

criteria for students who are enrolled or 

have been accepted for enrollment at an 

IHE that receives an allocation of 

fellowships. Section 657.30 describes 

limitations on the award of fellowships, 

including with respect to student 

eligibility. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.4 would retain existing 

requirements for citizenship and 

residency, enrollment status, academic 

merit, and modern foreign language 

study in a program using or developing 

performance goals. The proposed 

regulation would add descriptions of 

the training that three distinct 

populations of students must be able to 

receive during the fellowship period to 

be eligible to receive fellowships. The 

proposed changes would clarify that a 

student’s educational program is a 

relevant criterion for determining a 

student’s eligibility for a FLAS 

Fellowship. 

Reasons: The proposed regulation 

would reduce ambiguity and the 

potential for contradictory 

interpretations of student eligibility 

criteria. Adding descriptions of 

allowable types of training also would 

emphasize that student eligibility is tied 

to the availability of appropriate 

opportunities for instruction and 

training. 

The proposed changes would tie 

fellowship eligibility to a student’s 

educational program to better align the 

program design with the program’s 

statutory purpose of promoting 

expertise in foreign language and area 

studies. In this context, a student’s 

educational program refers to their 

degree program, inclusive of major 

requirements, minor requirements, 

general education requirements, 

certificate requirements, and other 

curricular requirements. The holistic 

emphasis on educational programs 

rather than solely focusing on 

individual courses during a specific 

academic term would ensure that 

fellowships are supporting the 

structured and intentional training of 

experts within appropriate curricular 

frameworks. 

The proposed changes would allow a 

grantee to identify any educational 

program as eligible if the educational 

program combines the study of modern 

foreign languages with area studies or 

the study of other fields from an 

international perspective. The diversity 

of curricular options at grantee IHEs 

would ensure the cultivation of relevant 

expertise in a wide variety of fields. The 

proposed regulation would recognize 

that well-designed curricula leading to 

recognized educational credentials are 

the most appropriate means for 

cultivating the types of expertise in 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies contemplated by the statute. We 

believe that the proposed regulation 

would encourage IHEs to innovate and 

establish appropriate interdisciplinary 

curricular options for students to study 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies in all fields of study, including 

STEM and professional fields. Formal 

curricular options discourage ad hoc 

arrangements that benefit one or only a 

small number of students. Making 

educational programs a fellowship 

eligibility criterion also would mitigate 

risk to the Department because it would 

require IHEs to demonstrate 

commitment to provide relevant 

courses, faculty, and educational 

resources for fellows at the grantee 

institution throughout the performance 

period. 

Section 657.5 What is the amount of a 

fellowship? 

Statute: Section 602(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 

1122(b)(1)) authorizes the Secretary to 

makes grants to IHEs or consortia of 

such institutions for the purpose of 

paying stipends to eligible students. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.31 

describes the amount and components 

of a fellowship. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

changes would relocate the description 

of the fellowship amount to subpart A 

to improve the organization of the 

program regulations. Proposed § 657.5 

would combine the current subsistence 

payment for the fellow (stipend) with 

the institutional payment for tuition and 

fees into a single stipend amount that 

would go to the fellow. This change 

would make a single stipend payment 

the major component of fellowships 

awarded under the FLAS Fellowships 

Program. Following current practice, the 

stipend amount for the academic year 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13527 

and summer as well as graduate and 

undergraduate fellowships authorized 

under this program would be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

Reasons: Given the program’s 

longstanding prohibition on 

administrative costs, the elimination of 

the institutional payment would 

eliminate the substantial burden for 

grantees associated with tracking and 

processing institutional payments as 

distinct from the stipend payments. The 

proposed change also acknowledges that 

institutional definitions of mandatory 

fees vary greatly, which complicates the 

Department’s ability to set an 

appropriate institutional payment 

amount. The proposed change would 

also establish predictable unit costs for 

fellowships, which would promote the 

efficient allocation and administration 

of fellowships. The proposed change 

would improve the ability of grantees to 

increase the number of meritorious 

students who apply for a fellowship 

because of the potential for larger 

stipend payments, which would 

enhance the program’s ability to meet its 

statutory purpose. The Department 

anticipates that grantees already 

contributing to costs above the 

institutional payment amount, to match 

commitments made to similar students 

at the same IHE, will continue to do so. 

The proposed change would not alter 

the Department’s expectation that 

payments cover fellows’ living expenses 

and the costs of advanced training in 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies. The proposed change would not 

affect the requirement that fellows 

remain in good academic standing and 

make satisfactory progress during the 

fellowship period or face potential 

termination of the fellowship. The 

proposed change would make 

additional funds available directly to 

the fellow and discourage IHEs from 

artificially increasing the institutional 

payment by setting tuition and fee 

amounts greater than actual costs. 

Increasing the amount of funds directly 

available to the fellow would allow the 

fellow to defray costs for specialized 

materials and experiences that support 

advanced training in modern foreign 

languages and area studies that would 

fall outside the definition of tuition, 

fees, or living expenses. The increased 

flexibility resulting from the proposed 

change would make the FLAS 

Fellowships Program more comparable 

to other Federal programs with similar 

goals, such as Boren Scholarships and 

Boren Fellowships, which cover 

recipient expenses for books, research 

materials, and other expenses apart from 

living expenses, tuition, and fees. 

Section 657.7 What definitions apply 

to this program? 

Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the Secretary to 

define terms necessary to make grants 

under the FLAS Fellowships Program. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.5 

defines terms that apply to the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.7 would add the definition of 

‘‘stipend’’ for the FLAS Fellowships 

Program. The proposed regulation 

would adjust the terminology used in 

part 657 by replacing the terms ‘‘Center’’ 

and ‘‘program’’ with the terms 

‘‘approved Centers’’ and ‘‘approved 

programs.’’ 

Reasons: The proposed changes 

would reduce ambiguity in part 657. 

The proposed definition of ‘‘stipend’’ 

would reflect that the FLAS fellowships 

typically would consist of a single 

payment to a fellow rather than the 

current combination of a subsistence 

allowance paid to the student (stipend) 

and a separate institutional payment 

intended to cover the costs of tuition 

and fees. Adding this definition would 

standardize the use of the term, 

eliminate redundant terminology, and 

therefore improve the efficiency of 

program implementation. The 

introduction of the terms ‘‘approved 

Center’’ and ‘‘approved program’’ would 

clearly distinguish centers and programs 

approved under the NRC or FLAS 

Fellowships Programs from other 

centers and programs at IHEs. 

Section 657.8 Severability 

Statute: Section 602 of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122) authorizes the Secretary to 

define terms necessary to make grants 

under the NRC Program. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations do not address severability. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

regulation would add a severability 

provision. 

Reasons: The Department seeks to 

clarify its intent that, with regard to 

severability, each of the regulations in 

part 657 and its subparts serves one or 

more important, related, but distinct, 

purposes. To best serve these purposes, 

we included this administrative 

provision in the regulations to make 

clear that the regulations are designed to 

operate independently of each other and 

to convey the Department’s intent that 

the potential invalidity of one provision 

or any of its subparts should not affect 

the remainder of the provisions. 

Application and Selection Processes 

(§§ 657.10, 657.11, 657.12, and 657.20) 

Statute: Section 602(e) of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires institutions 

seeking a grant under this program to 

follow an application process designed 

by the Secretary. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.10 

allows an applicant to submit a 

combined application for the NRC and 

FLAS programs. Section 657.20 

describes which selection criteria are 

used and how the Department 

communicates the point values for the 

selection criteria. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

regulations would update the 

application and selection processes. The 

proposed change would eliminate the 

possibility of submitting to both the 

NRC and FLAS Fellowships Program 

simultaneously (though applicants still 

could continue to submit separate 

applications under each program). 

Proposed § 657.10 would affirm that the 

FLAS Fellowships Program follows the 

Department’s standard procedures for 

grant applications by directing potential 

applicants to the application notice in 

the Federal Register for guidance. 

Proposed § 657.11 would clarify the 

assurances and materials required in 

every application for the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. Proposed § 657.12 

would reaffirm that individual students 

apply for individual fellowships 

through IHEs that have received an 

allocation of fellowships. Proposed 

§ 657.20 would add additional 

information about the selection process. 

Reasons: The proposed regulations 

would provide more accurate guidance 

based on current program management 

practices. The NRC Program and FLAS 

Fellowships Program have long been 

identified by separate Assistance Listing 

Numbers, and applications for these 

programs have been evaluated using 

program-specific selection criteria. The 

Department began using Grants.gov to 

receive applications for these two 

programs for the fiscal year 2022 

competition. In addition to the 

substantive differences between the 

programs and the selection criteria, 

Grants.gov cannot accept one 

application for two programs with 

individual Assistance Listing Numbers. 

Given these substantive differences and 

technical limitations, removing the 

option for simultaneous submission 

would improve the efficiency of 

program administration. Proposed 

§ 657.10 affirms that the FLAS 

Fellowships Program follows the 

Department’s standard procedures for 

grant applications by directing potential 

applicants to the application notice in 

the Federal Register for guidance. 

The additional information on 

assurances and required application 

materials in proposed § 657.11 would 

clarify statutory requirements and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

improve the efficiency of program 

administration. Section 602(e) of the 

HEA (20 U.S.C. 1122(e)) requires the 

explanation of how grant funded 

activities reflect diverse perspectives, as 

defined in the proposed regulations, and 

how applicants will encourage 

government service in areas of national 

need, as well as in areas of need in the 

education, business, and non-profit 

sectors. The Department already has 

required institutional applicants for the 

FLAS Fellowships Program to submit 

these assurances for multiple 

competitions. The proposed regulation 

would emphasize the importance of this 

requirement. 

Proposed § 657.12 makes minor 

adjustments to the description of the 

student application process to make 

clear that individual students must 

apply for a fellowship through 

institutional grantees under part 657. 

The proposed change would codify 

longstanding practices that institutional 

grantees control the application and 

selection processes for individual 

fellowships. 

Proposed § 657.20 would promote 

transparency and support efficient 

program management by adding a more 

detailed description of the selection 

process. Under proposed § 657.20, 

experts in relevant fields would review 

applications for an allocation of 

fellowships to determine excellence 

based on the appropriate selection 

criteria. Applications with similar areas 

of geographic focus would be grouped 

together. Peer reviewers would score 

each application separately, and then 

applications from each group would be 

selected for funding in rank order 

within each group based on the peer 

reviewers’ scores. If a lack of funds 

prevented funding all highly ranked 

applications in each group, the 

proposed regulation would permit the 

Department to consider the degree to 

which applications were likely to serve 

any competition priorities published in 

the application notice that were derived 

from the ‘‘consultation on areas of 

national need’’ or that were related to 

specific countries, world areas, or 

languages. 

Variations on the peer review process 

described in the proposed regulation 

have been included in the application 

notice for several grant cycles, so the 

proposed regulation would reflect 

longstanding practices. This added 

transparency also would benefit new 

applicants that may be unfamiliar with 

the selection process and would affirm 

the importance of supporting the study 

of world areas or languages identified 

through the consultation process or 

priorities established by the Secretary. 

Selection Criteria and Program Priorities 

(§§ 657.21 and 657.22) 

Statute: Section 607(b) of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1127(b)) requires the Secretary to 

set selection criteria that will enable 

reviewers to make a determination of 

excellence relative to the program’s 

objectives. This section also requires the 

Secretary to consider specific selection 

criteria, such as the degree to which 

fellowships at IHEs address national 

needs and generate information for and 

disseminate information to the public. 

Current Regulation: Section 657.21 

describes the selection criteria for 

comprehensive Centers. Section 656.22 

describes the possible funding priorities 

for the FLAS Fellowships program. 

Proposed Regulation: The proposed 

changes to the selection criteria would 

add clarity, eliminate redundancy, and 

reduce the burden on applicants while 

improving alignment with the 

authorizing statute. The current 

selection criteria are comprised of nine 

criteria and 22 specific sub-criteria, 

excluding specific sub-criteria 

describing the competitive preference 

priorities for a specific competition. The 

proposed changes would reduce the 

number of criteria to six without 

modifying the total number of subcriteria. 

Proposed § 657.21(a)–(c) would 

require applicants to describe the 

current state of administrative 

operations, academic programs, 

educational resources, and other 

relevant activities. Proposed 

§§ 657.21(d)–(f) would require 

applicants to describe their goals and 

plans for the grant period. 

Proposed § 657.22 would rephrase the 

current list of priorities in § 657.22, add 

a new priority related to the use of 

stated performance goals in language 

instruction, add a new priority related 

to the ‘‘consultation on areas of national 

need,’’ add a priority related to 

academic terms, and drop a priority 

related to specific countries. 

Reasons: The proposed revisions to 

the selection criteria are designed to 

provide greater alignment with the 

FLAS Fellowships Program statute. As 

described further below, the focus of 

proposed § 657.21(a)–(c) on an 

applicant’s current state of operations 

would help us to select grantees that are 

most likely to meet the minimum 

instructional and administrative 

requirements included in the statute 

and these proposed regulations. 

Proposed § 657.21(d)–(f) would require 

applicants to address plans for the 

grant’s performance period. The 

proposed arrangement of selection 

criteria would streamline the structure 

of the application narrative. 

Proposed § 657.21(a) would add a 

criterion for ‘‘Scope, personnel and 

operations.’’ This proposed criterion 

would require applicants to explain 

how the applicant meets the 

instructional and administrative 

requirements detailed in proposed 

§ 657.3(a), including, but not limited to, 

how the proposed allocation of 

fellowships would be used to support 

area studies and language training and 

instruction aligned with a 

geographically defined world area and 

specific languages associated with that 

world area. This approach would 

benefit applicants because we recognize 

that applicants may propose novel or 

distinctive approaches grounded in 

research, so they would be able to 

clearly explain the proposed allocation 

of fellowships to reviewers and describe 

the rationale for it. 

Proposed § 657.21(a) also would 

combine elements of the selection 

criteria found in the current § 657.21(b) 

and 657.21(d). The proposed criterion 

would continue to address oversight 

arrangements and institutional 

commitment. Proposed §§ 657.21(a)(3) 

would specifically require consortia 

applicants to provide a rationale for the 

formation of a consortium which would 

allow reviewers to evaluate the 

administrative impact of the consortium 

agreement. 

Proposed § 657.21(a)(4) would require 

applicants to describe financial, 

administrative, and other support 

specifically to support administration of 

the allocation of FLAS fellowships 

rather than for the entire relevant 

subject area as under current 

§ 657.21(d). Reported amounts of 

financial support are subject to wide 

variation for reasons unrelated to an 

institution’s actual level of commitment. 

For example, labor and other costs vary 

substantially by geographic location 

within the United States. Financial 

support for students may reflect an 

IHE’s tuition rates, which vary widely 

across institutions. For example, an 

institution that charges relatively 

modest tuition and routinely waives all 

tuition and mandatory fees for students 

in an area studies program may report 

a lower level of total financial support 

for students under the current selection 

criteria than an institution that charges 

high tuition and only waives a portion 

of tuition for a similar population of 

students. The proposed change would 

allow reviewers to evaluate institutional 

contributions that are directly relevant 

to the administration of applicant’s 

allocation of fellowships. The other 

proposed selection criteria provide 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13529 

alternative opportunities to demonstrate 

the effects of an institution’s financial 

support relevant to administration of the 

proposed allocation of fellowships in 

terms of the availability and quality of 

various educational resources, such as 

teaching staff, library resources, linkages 

with institutions abroad, and student 

support. 

Grouping sub-criteria related to these 

topics into a single category and 

clarifying that these sub-criteria refer 

specifically to the administrative unit 

seeking an allocation of fellowships 

would help ensure that the allocation of 

fellowships aligns with the program 

purpose and that grantees have the 

necessary administrative capacity. 

Proposed § 657.21(b) would add a 

criterion for ‘‘Quality of curriculum and 

instruction’’ that would combine 

elements of the selection criteria found 

in current §§ 657.21(f)–(h). The 

proposed criteria would continue to 

address elements of curriculum design, 

language instruction, and non-language 

area studies instruction, but the 

proposed category would allow 

applicants to address these elements in 

a more integrated manner, emphasizing 

how these elements of academic 

excellence are closely interconnected. 

Overall, the proposed changes would 

explicitly require applicants to describe 

distinctive strengths in instruction and 

curriculum design, so applicants would 

be able to highlight features of national 

significance. Proposed § 657.21(b)(1) 

would continue to emphasize the degree 

to which intentionally interdisciplinary 

curriculum options for students are 

indicators of excellence for the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. Proposed 

§ 656.22(b)(3) would require applicants 

to describe whether applicants integrate 

performance goals into language 

instruction and the degree to which 

such goals, if they exist, are met or are 

likely to be met by students. This subcriterion resembles current 

§ 657.21(g)(4) and responds more 

directly to the statutory requirement 

that fellows enroll in instructional 

programs with stated performance goals 

or in programs that are developing such 

performance goals (20 U.S.C. 

1122(b)(2)(A)). This proposed subcriterion also acknowledges that the 

design, implementation, and ongoing 

improvement of language instruction is 

an indicator of excellence. The 

proposed sub-criteria also would 

eliminate the extent to which students 

enroll in the study of language from 

explicit consideration as an indicator of 

quality for an applicant’s program of 

language instruction, which is included 

in current § 657.21(g)(1), and instead 

require applicants to explain in 

proposed § 657.21(b)(2) the frequency 

with which relevant language courses at 

various level are offered. The proposed 

focus on frequency will allow reviewers 

to more directly evaluate an institution’s 

capacity to offer relevant language 

instruction and training. 

Proposed §§ 657.21(c) and 657.22(c) 

would add a criterion for ‘‘Quality of 

faculty and academic resources.’’ This 

proposed criterion would combine 

elements of the selection criteria found 

in the current §§ 657.21(c), 657.21(e), 

and 657.21(h). The proposed criterion 

would require applicants to describe 

how the applicants’ educational 

resources and educational programs 

demonstrate that the proposed 

allocation of fellowships would support 

high quality and distinctive training 

opportunities for fellows. Proposed 

§§ 657.21(c)(1)–(2) would further 

emphasize the need to employ highly 

qualified faculty at IHEs receiving an 

allocation of fellowships. Proposed 

§ 657.21(c)(2) would emphasize that 

IHEs receiving an allocation of 

fellowships must be deeply committed 

to a fellow’s future success as 

demonstrated by the intentional 

provision of academic and career 

advising specifically tailored to the 

strengths and experiences of FLAS 

fellows. Such opportunities would 

potentially benefit all students with 

international experiences and expertise. 

Proposed § 657.21(c)(3) would remind 

applicants that fellows undergoing 

advanced training in modern foreign 

languages and area studies must have 

access to appropriate educational 

resources, especially suitable library 

collections and other research 

collections. This proposed sub-criterion 

would remove the explicit consideration 

of financial support for acquisition and 

library staff in current § 657.21(e)(1), as 

well as direct consideration of 

cooperative arrangements and databases 

in current § 657.21(e)(2). Instead, 

proposed § 657.21(c)(3) requires 

applicants to describe library staffing 

arrangements relevant to the proposed 

allocation of fellowships. Although 

financial support is critical for the longterm viability of academic libraries, 

such support is less directly relevant for 

reviewers to determine the resources 

that will be available to fellows during 

the grant’s performance period. Online 

databases and other electronic materials 

are now commonplace in library 

collections, so they do not need to be 

singled out as resources apart from a 

library’s normal collections. 

Proposed § 657.21(c)(4) would 

emphasize the importance of access to 

relevant research and study abroad 

opportunities for FLAS fellows and 

require applicants to discuss the actual 

use of such arrangements, which would 

indicate not only breadth of offerings 

but also their ease of use and the 

institution’s responsiveness to student 

interests. 

Proposed § 657.21(d) would add a 

criterion for ‘‘Project design and 

rationale.’’ This criterion would allow 

applicants to explain the overall vision 

for their projects and how their projects 

are intended to meet the purposes of the 

FLAS Fellowships Program. Current 

sub-criteria addressing national needs 

and placement would be merged with 

this criterion. Proposed § 657.21(d)(1) 

would require applicants to discuss how 

a proposed allocation of fellowships 

would fit with the applicants’ 

educational programs and resources. 

This sub-criterion would encourage 

applicants to identify specific 

educational programs and languages 

that are likely to be supported by the 

proposed allocation of fellowships. 

Proposed § 657.21(d)(4) would require 

applicants to explain how diverse 

perspectives and a wide range of views 

required by the statute would be 

represented in the project. This subcriterion would allow expert reviewers 

to evaluate how effectively the proposed 

project would address the statutory 

mandate that project activities reflect 

diverse perspectives and a wide range of 

views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs. This 

approach would complement the 

current requirement for applicants to 

submit an assurance on this topic by 

allowing applicants to receive expert 

feedback, which they currently do not. 

The proposed sub-criterion also would 

provide additional guidance to 

applicants that the discussion of diverse 

perspectives should be directly relevant 

to the proposed project rather than a 

general statement about institutional 

practices. This approach would ensure 

that high scoring applicants would be 

likely to meet the statutory expectation 

at the time of application and 

throughout the grant’s performance 

period. 

Proposed § 657.21(e) would add a 

‘‘Project planning and budget’’ criterion 

that would replace current § 657.21(a). 

This new criterion would enhance 

transparency and facilitate the efficient 

allocation of funding by inviting 

applicants to justify the amount of the 

requested allocation of fellowships. This 

criterion complements proposed 

§ 657.21(f), which would address plans 

for project evaluation. These 

interrelated criteria would require 

applicants to explain the intended 

outcomes for their projects, the 

anticipated distribution of fellowships 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

and how they would align with the 

intended outcomes, and the evaluative 

process that would help determine 

whether those intended outcomes were 

being realized during the grant period. 

These criteria would allow reviewers to 

determine the excellence of the 

proposed project in relation to the 

current operations described in 

proposed § 657.21(a)–(c). 

The proposed selection criteria would 

also eliminate certain elements of the 

current selection criteria not already 

addressed above. Current § 657.21(h)(3) 

specifically includes the extent to which 

the institution facilitates student access 

to other institutions’ study abroad and 

summer language programs. The 

proposed selection criteria would not 

include identical provisions. Proposed 

§ 657.21(b)(4) would, however, require 

applicants to describe formal 

arrangements for study to conduct 

research or study abroad relevant to the 

proposed allocation of fellowships, and 

would not preclude discussing student 

access to other institutions’ study 

abroad and summer language programs 

in this context. The proposed 

regulations would eliminate current 

§ 657.21(i), ‘‘Degree to which priorities 

are served,’’ as the Secretary may award 

points for competitive preference 

priorities without including such a 

category in the selection criteria. See 

generally 34 CFR 75.105(c). Although 

the Department has never interpreted 

the regulations to allow it, moreover, 

removing priorities from the selection 

criteria also avoids the appearance of 

allowing applicants to receive points 

twice for responding to the same 

competitive preference priority (once 

through the selection criteria, and once 

for responding to the priority). This 

proposed change would not alter the 

current approach to competitive 

preference priorities. Current 

§ 657.21(c)(2) requires that an 

applicant’s evaluation plan produce 

quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented 

data. The proposed regulations would 

eliminate this explicit requirement. 

Instead, proposed § 657.21(f) would 

require applicants to describe a more 

holistic approach to evaluation, 

including the qualifications of the 

evaluator(s) and an evaluation plan that 

is appropriate for the grant project. 

Although many performance-related 

data are quantifiable, not all data 

collected for evaluation purposes are 

quantifiable. Qualitative data may be a 

component of an evaluation plan. The 

proposed regulations also would 

include a requirement to describe plans 

to obtain performance feedback and 

periodic assessment of progress toward 

meeting intended outcomes, so the 

proposed approach incorporates an 

interest in project outcomes. The 

proposed regulations would provide 

greater flexibility to applicants when 

designing an evaluation plan. 

Proposed § 657.22 would rephrase the 

list of priorities in current § 657.22, add 

three priorities, and drop a priority. The 

new priority related to stated 

performance goals in language 

instruction would reflect the statutory 

requirements for fellowships and would 

allow the Secretary to more directly 

implement this provision when 

awarding allocations of fellowships. The 

new priority related to academic terms 

would allow the Secretary to prioritize 

academic year or summer fellowships. 

As described in proposed § 657.30(b), 

the duration of a fellowship would be 

related to the types of study, training, or 

research that are allowable for a fellow. 

The proposed priority would allow the 

Secretary to, for example, prioritize 

intensive language training during a 

summer term if the Secretary recognized 

a specific national need for intensive 

language instruction. The new priority 

related to the ‘‘consultation on areas of 

national need’’ would allow the 

Secretary to select a priority that 

explicitly reflects the results of the 

consultation with Federal agencies. 

While such consultation is required by 

the statute, this proposed change would 

enable the Secretary to easily identify a 

priority for a specific language or world 

region as aligned with the national 

needs recognized by Federal agencies, 

which would better integrate the 

required consultation and the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. The proposed 

regulation would drop a priority related 

to specific countries because the other 

priorities would provide a sufficient 

degree of specificity to select specific 

world regions in conjunction with 

specific languages and specific topics of 

study. 

Section 657.30 What are the 

limitations on fellowships and the use 

of fellowship funds? 

Statute: Section 602(b)–(d) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(b)–(d)) describe 

limitations on the use of fellowship 

funds and authorize the Secretary to set 

relevant policies. 

Current Regulation: Sections 657.30 

and 657.33 describe limitations on the 

use of fellowship funds. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.30 would consolidate two current 

sections that discuss limitations on the 

use of fellowship funds and clarify how 

funds may be used in frequently 

encountered situations not currently 

addressed in part 657. 

Reasons: The proposed changes 

would align the program with 

developments in postsecondary 

education. The proposed changes would 

address distance education in light of 

the increasing use of this instruction 

modality and would emphasize that 

distance education may be appropriate 

for satisfying the fellowship’s course 

requirements. The Secretary would have 

flexibility to approve distance education 

on a case-by-case basis, which would 

allow consideration of various factors, 

especially the extent to which the 

modality would benefit the fellow by 

enhancing access to advanced training 

opportunities. 

The proposed changes would 

rephrase and explain in detail the 

duration of fellowships as well as 

providing more detail regarding 

eligibility for the different types of 

fellowships. In particular, the proposed 

changes would set forth requirements 

with regard to dissertation research and 

dissertation writing fellowships, which 

were left unstated in the current 

regulations. The proposed regulations 

would clearly explain what is required 

for a student to receive one of these 

fellowships, which would align the 

regulations with accepted program 

management practices. 

The proposed changes also introduce 

a provision regarding internships. FLAS 

fellows sometimes find that it is useful 

to undertake an internship in the course 

of their study. The proposed regulation 

enables internships at the discretion of 

the Secretary. Also, the proposed 

changes make explicit that FLAS 

grantees must follow the procedures set 

forth in their applications when they 

select FLAS fellows. Other accepted 

practices in the management of these 

grants are also clearly stated in the 

proposed changes, including specific 

requirements that apply to study outside 

the U.S., the conditions that apply to 

acceptance of concurrent awards from 

other Federal agencies, the conditions 

that apply to a transfer of FLAS funds 

to another institution, and when FLAS 

funds may be used for undergraduate 

travel. Finally, the proposed regulations 

clarify the policy regarding fellowship 

vacancies. The proposed changes also 

would reinforce longstanding program 

guidance that program administration 

costs cannot be charged to grants 

providing an allocation of fellowships 

under the FLAS Fellowships Program. 

Grantee IHEs are the beneficiaries of the 

revenue generated by fellows’ payments 

for tuition and fees, and the selection 

process is intended to identify IHEs 

with sufficient administrative capacity 

to administer an allocation of 

fellowships. Additional payments for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13531 

administrative costs would reduce the 

funds available for fellowships and run 

counter to the program purpose. 

Section 657.33 What are the reporting 

requirements for grantee institutions 

and for individual fellows who receive 

funds under this program? 

Statute: Section 602(b)(1) of the HEA 

(20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(1)) authorizes the 

Secretary to makes grants to IHEs for the 

purpose of paying stipends to eligible 

students. Additionally, 20 U.S.C. 1132– 

3 authorizes the Secretary to ‘‘assess and 

ensure compliance with all the 

conditions and terms of grants’’ 

provided under title VI of the HEA. 

Current Regulation: Current 

regulations do not address reporting 

requirements. 

Proposed Regulation: Proposed 

§ 657.33 would affirm that all IHEs that 

receive an allocation of fellowships 

under this part and all fellows who 

receive a fellowship under this part are 

required to abide by all reporting 

requirements established for the FLAS 

Fellowships Program. 

Reasons: The current regulations do 

not address the issue of reporting. The 

proposed changes would address 

grantee concerns by providing sufficient 

authority for IHEs to require fellows to 

submit all reports in a timely manner. 

This change would enable the 

Department to improve the efficiency of 

program administration by promoting 

the collection of complete and accurate 

records about fellows during the 

fellowship period. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more (as of 

2023 but adjusted every 3 years by the 

Administrator of OIRA for changes in 

gross domestic product); or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

territorial, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities, or the principles stated in the 

Executive order, as specifically 

authorized in a timely manner by the 

Administrator of OIRA in each case. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. 

We have also reviewed the proposed 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866 (as amended by 

Executive Order 14094). To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

on a reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ OMB’s OIRA 

has emphasized that these techniques 

may include ‘‘identifying changing 

future compliance costs that might 

result from technological innovation or 

anticipated behavioral changes.’’ 

We are issuing the proposed 

regulations only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

any associated costs. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that the proposed regulations 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, territorial, or 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In accordance with these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The potential costs to applicants, 

grant recipients, and the Department 

associated with the proposed regulatory 

change would be minimal, while there 

would be greater potential benefits to 

applicants, grant recipients, and the 

Department. 

We anticipate a minimal increase in 

NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships 

Program applications as a result of 

revising the selection criteria, so we 

foresee minimal impact on the 

Department’s time and cost of reviewing 

these applications. 

Over the last four years, the amount 

of funding for the NRC Program has 

ranged from approximately $23.7 to 

$29.3 million per year with 155 eligible 

grant applications received and 

reviewed in the most recent 

competition. Of these applicants, 98 

received grant awards in fiscal year 

2022, and an additional 15 of these 

applicants ultimately received grant 

awards through funding down the slate 

in fiscal year 2023. Over the same 

period, the amount of funding for the 

FLAS Fellowships Program has 

remained stable at approximately $31.2 

million per year, with 160 eligible grant 

applications received and reviewed in 

the most recent competition. We 

awarded grants to 112 of these 

applications in fiscal year 2022. 

The number of applications for both 

programs has remained relatively steady 

across recent competitions, but the 

number of grant awards for the NRC 

Program has increased slightly after 

funding down the slate. The Department 

expects the number of applications and 

grant rewards to remain similar in 

future years. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 In regulations prior to 2016, the Department 

categorized small businesses based on tax status. 

Those regulations defined ‘‘nonprofit 

organizations’’ as ‘‘small organizations’’ if they were 

independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in their field of operation, or as ‘‘small 

entities’’ if they were institutions controlled by 

governmental entities with populations below 

50,000. Those definitions resulted in the 

categorization of all private nonprofit organizations 

as small and no public institutions as small. Under 

the previous definition, proprietary institutions 

were considered small if they are independently 

owned and operated and not dominant in their field 

of operation with total annual revenue below 

$7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for 

proprietary institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90 

percent of 2-year or less proprietary institutions 

would be considered small. By contrast, an 

enrollment-based definition applies the same metric 

to all types of institutions, allowing consistent 

comparison across all types. 

2 In those prior rules, at least two but less-thanfour-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. 

The proposed changes to the selection 

criteria would require the Department to 

develop new technical review forms. 

The proposed regulations also would 

require the Department to update 

program guidance and technical 

assistance materials for applicants, peer 

reviewers, and grant recipients. The 

Department anticipates the costs 

associated with these activities to be 

minimal, because we already engage in 

an ongoing process to revise, update, 

and improve these materials for each 

competition for these programs. 

Similarly, any revisions to the 

selection criteria would have no effect 

on current grant recipients under both 

programs. The Department also believes 

the proposed revisions would have little 

net effect on applicants. Applicants 

already develop new applications for 

each competition in response to a 

Notice Inviting Applications that may 

contain new competitive preference 

priorities or a new allocation of points 

for the existing selection criteria. The 

proposed selection criteria refer to 

similar types of data as the current 

selection criteria. The Department 

foresees that the costs for applicants and 

grant recipients that result from the 

proposed changes to the selection 

criteria would be minimal. 

The Department foresees that current 

grant recipients under the FLAS 

Fellowships Program may incur minor 

costs associated with program 

administration due to the revised 

program regulations. Although the 

regulations would not make any major 

changes to the FLAS Fellowships 

Program, the regulations would be 

expanded to address new issues by 

codifying current guidance from the 

Department. As a result, grant recipients 

would need to familiarize themselves 

with the new regulations and update 

any references to the regulations that 

appear in their documents developed to 

assist program administration, 

especially in documents distributed to 

students and current and prospective 

fellows. 

The benefits of amending these 

regulations include (1) clarifying 

statutory language, (2) redesigning the 

selection criteria to reduce redundancy 

to improve the application process, and 

(3) updating the current regulations to 

reflect current practices in program 

administration and relevant fields of 

education. We anticipate that the 

clarifications, reductions to the number 

of selection criteria, and adjustments to 

administration will reduce the burden 

on applicants and grant recipients for 

both the NRC Program and FLAS 

Fellowships Program. 

Alternatives Considered 

The Department reviewed and 

assessed various alternatives to the 

proposed regulations. The Department 

considered maintaining current 

regulations and developing additional 

technical assistance and guidance to 

address emerging topics in modern 

foreign language and area studies 

education, especially distance 

education. The Department also 

considered developing extensive new 

technical assistance and guidance to 

explain the differences that exist among 

similar sections of the regulations for 

both programs. The Department 

determined that revising the regulations 

was the most efficient option to 

decrease administrative burden and 

ensure that the programs fulfill their 

statutory purposes. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Clarity of the Regulation 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. The 

Secretary invites comments on how to 

make the proposed regulation easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

(a) Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

(b) Do the proposed regulations 

contain technical terms or other 

wording that interferes with their 

clarity? 

(c) Do the format of the proposed 

regulations (use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 

clarity? 

(d) Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol 

‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for 

example, § 106.9 Dissemination of 

policy.) 

(e) Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

(f) What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that the 

proposed regulations would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that would be 

affected by the proposed regulations are 

IHEs that would submit applications to 

the Department under this program. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines ‘‘small institution’’ using 

data on revenue, market dominance, tax 

filing status, governing body, and 

population. The majority of entities to 

which the Office of Postsecondary 

Education’s (OPE) regulations apply are 

postsecondary institutions, however, 

which do not report such data to the 

Department. As a result, for purposes of 

these proposed regulations, the 

Department continues to define ‘‘small 

entities’’ by reference to enrollment, to 

allow meaningful comparison of 

regulatory impact across all types of 

higher education institutions. The 

enrollment standard for small less-thantwo-year institutions (below associate 

degrees) is less than 750 full-timeequivalent (FTE) students and for small 

institutions of at least two but less-than4-years, and 4-year institutions, less 

than 1,000 FTE students.1 As a result of 

discussions with the Small Business 

Administration, this is an update from 

the standard used in some prior rules. 

Those prior rules applied an enrollment 

standard for a small two-year institution 

of less than 500 full-time-equivalent 

(FTE) students and for a small 4-year 

institution, less than 1,000 FTE 

students.2 The Department consulted 

with the Office of Advocacy for the SBA 

and the Office of Advocacy has 

approved the revised alternative 

standard. The Department continues to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13533 

believe this approach most accurately 

reflects a common basis for determining 

size categories that is linked to the 

provision of educational services and 

that it captures a similar universe of 

small entities as the SBA’s revenue 

standard. 

TABLE 1—SMALL INSTITUTIONS UNDER ENROLLMENT-BASED DEFINITION

Level Type Small Total Percent 

2-year .............................................................. Public .............................................................. 328 1,182 27.75 

2-year .............................................................. Private ............................................................ 182 199 91.46 

2-year .............................................................. Proprietary ...................................................... 1,777 1,952 91.03 

4-year .............................................................. Public .............................................................. 56 747 7.50 

4-year .............................................................. Private ............................................................ 789 1,602 49.25 

4-year .............................................................. Proprietary ...................................................... 249 331 75.23 

Total ......................................................... ......................................................................... 3,381 6,013 56.23 

Source: 2018–19 data reported to the Department. 

As the table indicates, these proposed 

regulations would affect institutions of 

higher education that meet the 

definition of small entities. They would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on these entities, however, because they 

would not impose excessive regulatory 

burdens or require unnecessary Federal 

supervision. The proposed regulations 

would impose minimal requirements to 

ensure the proper expenditure of 

program funds. We invite the public to 

comment on our certification that these 

regulations would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that the public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

Sections 656.21, 656.22, 656.23, and 

657.21 of the proposed regulations 

contain information collection 

requirements. Under the PRA, the 

Department has submitted a copy of 

these sections to OMB for its review. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the final regulations, we will 

display the control number assigned by 

OMB to any information collection 

requirements proposed in this NPRM 

and adopted in the final regulations. 

The information collection that would 

be impacted by these proposed 

regulatory changes is the current 

Application for the NRC and FLAS 

Fellowships Programs (1840–0807). 

This information collection includes 

application instructions and forms for 

the NRC Program (ALN Number 

84.015A) and the FLAS Fellowships 

Program (ALN Number 84.015B), 

authorized under title VI of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 

U.S.C. 1122). 

The NRC Program provides grants to 

IHEs or consortia of IHEs to establish, 

strengthen, and operate comprehensive 

and undergraduate foreign language and 

area or international studies centers. 

These centers serve as centers of 

excellence for world language training 

and teaching, research, and instruction 

in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions, or 

countries where the languages are 

commonly used. 

The FLAS Fellowships Program 

awards allocations of fellowships, 

through institutions of higher education 

or consortia of institutions of higher 

education, to meritorious students 

enrolled in programs that offer 

performance-based instruction in world 

languages in combination with area 

studies, international studies, or the 

international aspects of professional 

studies. 

Together, these programs respond to 

the ongoing national need for 

individuals with expertise and 

competence in world languages and area 

or international studies; advance 

national security by developing a 

pipeline of highly proficient linguists 

and experts in critical world regions; 

and contribute to developing a globally 

competent workforce able to engage 

with a multilingual/multicultural 

clientele at home and abroad. 

Eligible institutions of higher 

education use the information collection 

to submit applications to the 

Department of Education (ED) to request 

funding in response to the competition 

announcement. After grant applications 

are submitted, the Department 

determines the budget and staff 

resources it needs to conduct the peer 

review of applications and post award 

activities. External review panels use 

the information to evaluate grant 

applications and to identify high-quality 

applications. When developing funding 

slates, ED program officials consider the 

evaluations from the expert review 

panels, in conjunction with the NRC 

and FLAS legislative purposes and any 

Administration priorities. ED program 

officials also use the collection to 

inform strategic planning; to establish 

goals, performance measures and 

objectives; to develop monitoring plans; 

or to align program assessment 

standards with Department performance 

goals and initiatives. 

Over many grant cycles, 

administering the NRC and FLAS grant 

competitions using the current selection 

criteria has been unwieldy and 

burdensome for both applicants and 

peer reviewers. The Secretary proposes 

changes to the selection criteria to 

clarify selection criteria, eliminate 

redundant criteria, reduce the burden 

on applicants and peer reviewers, and 

improve alignment with the statute, 

particularly with regard to 

comprehensive and undergraduate 

Centers. The Secretary proposes 

reducing the comprehensive NRC 

selection criteria from 10 criteria with 

27 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24 

sub-criteria; the undergraduate NRC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

selection criteria from 10 criteria with 

26 sub-criteria to six criteria with 24 

sub-criteria; and the FLAS selection 

criteria from nine criteria with 22 subcriteria to six criteria with 22 subcriteria. 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 Grants.gov 

system. 

The NRC application (1840–0807) 

would be affected by the proposed 

changes to the NRC selection criteria 

(§§ 656.21, 656.22, and 656.23), which 

require changes on the application 

package and technical review forms. 

This information collection would no 

longer address aspects of the FLAS 

program. The proposed changes to the 

NRC selection criteria would clarify 

interpretations of statutory language and 

redesign the selection criteria. The 

proposed regulations would remove 

ambiguity and redundancy in the 

selection criteria and definitions of key 

terms, improve the application process, 

and align the administration of the 

programs with the developments in 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies education. 

The FLAS application (1840–NEW) 

would be affected by the proposed 

changes to the FLAS selection criteria 

(§§ 657.21), which require changes on 

the application package and technical 

review forms. This new information 

collection would reflect the separation 

of the applications for the NRC and 

FLAS programs. The proposed changes 

to the FLAS selection criteria would 

clarify interpretations of statutory 

language and redesign the selection 

criteria. The proposed regulations 

would remove ambiguity and 

redundancy in the selection criteria and 

definitions of key terms, improve the 

application process, and align the 

administration of the programs with the 

developments in modern foreign 

languages and area studies education. 

Previously, both applications were 

combined into one information 

collection for the Application for the 

NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs 

(1840–0807). The proposed regulations 

would necessitate fully separating the 

information collection into two distinct 

information collections. Accordingly, 

the burdens associated with these 

information collections are derived from 

the burden associated with the current 

version of the Application for the NRC 

and FLAS Fellowships Programs (1840– 

0807). Taken together, proposed 

selection criteria would reduce the hour 

burden per response by one hour, from 

27 to 26. When multiplied by 165 

respondents, this change would result 

in a decrease in Total Annual Burden 

hours from 4,455 to 4,290. The Total 

Annual Costs would decrease from 

$334,125 to $321,750. 

The NRC and FLAS programs 

compete only once every four years. The 

application packages are cleared with 

OMB once every three years. For every 

three-year clearance period, the 

competitions are run once. Because of 

the separation of the two information 

collections, the Total Annual Burden 

Hours and Total Annual Costs are 

halved, as demonstrated in the tables 

below. For both the NRC Program and 

the FLAS Fellowships Program, 26 

hours to complete both applications is 

reduced to 13 hours each. When 

multiplied by 165 respondents this 

yields Total Annual Burden Hours of 

2,145 and Total Annual Costs of 

$160,875. Averaged over three years, the 

Total Annual Burden Hours are reduced 

to 715 and the Total Annual Costs are 

reduced to $52,301 for each program. 

NRC PROGRAM (1840–0807) 

Affected type Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Average 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Estimated 

respondent 

average 

hourly wage 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Total 

annual 

costs 

Institutions, private or non-profit .................................... 165 165 13 $75 2,145 $160,875 

FLAS FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM (1840–NEW) 

Affected type Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Average 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Estimated 

respondent 

average 

hourly wage 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Total 

annual 

costs 

Institutions, private or non-profit .................................... 165 165 13 $75 2,145 $160,875 

The NRC application (1840–0807) 

would be affected by the proposed 

changes to the NRC selection criteria 

(§§ 656.21, 656.22, and 656.23), which 

would require changes on the 

application package and technical 

review forms. 

Regulatory section Information collection OMB control No. and estimated burden 

§§ 656.21, 656.22, 656.23, 

and 657.21.

These proposed regulatory provisions would require 

changing the application package and technical review forms to reflect the modified selection criteria for 

this program.

1840–0807. The number of respondents would remain 

constant at 165 and the number of total burden hours 

for the application would be reduced to 2,145 when 

averaged over three years. The averaged total cost 

would be reduced to $160,875. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3

I I I I I I 

I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13535 

The FLAS application (1840–NEW) 

would be affected by the proposed 

changes to the FLAS selection criteria 

(§ 657.21), which would require changes 

on the application package and 

technical review forms. 

Regulatory section Information collection OMB control No. and estimated burden 

§ 657.21 ............................... These proposed regulatory provisions would require 

changing the application package and technical review forms to reflect the modified selection criteria for 

this program.

1840–NEW. The number of respondents would remain 

constant at 165 and the number of total burden hours 

for the application would be reduced to 2,145 when 

averaged over three years. The averaged total cost 

would be reduced to $160,875. 

We have prepared Information 

Collection Requests for these 

information collection requirements. If 

you wish to review and comment on the 

Information Collection Requests, please 

follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of this notification. 

Note: The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the 

Department review all comments posted 

at www.regulations.gov. 

Note: The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the 

Department review all comments posted 

at www.regulations.gov. 

We consider your comments on this 

proposed collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB must make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in these proposed regulations 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure 

that OMB gives your comments full 

consideration, it is important that OMB 

receives your comments by March 25, 

2024. This does not affect the deadline 

for your comments to us on the 

proposed regulations. If your comments 

relate to the Information Collection 

Requests for these proposed regulations, 

please specify the Docket ID number 

and indicate ‘‘Information Collection 

Comments’’ on the top of your 

comments. 

Intergovernmental Review 

The proposed regulations are not 

subject to Executive Order 12372 and 

the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, the 

Secretary particularly requests 

comments on whether the proposed 

regulations would require transmission 

of information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires us to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local elected officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. 

‘‘Federalism implications’’ means 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

regulations do not have federalism 

implications. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or PDF. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available at no cost to the user at the 

site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 655 

Colleges and universities, Cultural 

exchange programs, Educational 

research, Educational study programs, 

Grant programs—education, 

Scholarships and fellowships. 

34 CFR Part 656 

Colleges and universities, Cultural 

exchange programs, Educational 

research, Educational study programs, 

Grant programs—education, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

34 CFR Part 657 

Colleges and universities, Cultural 

exchange programs, Educational study 

programs, Grant programs—education, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships. 

Miguel A. Cardona, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary of Education 

proposes to amend parts 655, 656, and 

657 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 655—INTERNATIONAL 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS—GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 655.1 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Area Studies Fellowships Program 

(section 602 of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended); 

* * * * * 

§ 655.3 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 655.3 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (a) and (d). 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (c) as paragraphs (a) through 

(b). 

■ 4. Revise § 655.4 to read as follows: 

§ 655.4 What definitions apply to the 

International Education Programs? 

(a) The following terms used in this 

part and 34 CFR parts 656, 657, 658, 

660, 661, and 669 are defined in 2 CFR 

part 200, subpart A, 34 CFR 77.1, 34 

CFR 600.2, or 34 CFR 668.2: 

Academic engagement 

Acquisition 

Applicant 

Application 

Award 

Budget 

Clock hour 

Contract 

Correspondence course 

Credit hour 

Distance education 

Educational program 

EDGAR 

Enrolled 

Equipment 

Facilities 

Fiscal year 

Full-time student 

Graduate or professional student 

Grant 

Grantee 

Grant period 

Half-time student 

Local educational agency 

National level 

Nonprofit 

Project 

Project period 

Private 

Public 

Regular student 

Secretary 

State educational agency 

Supplies 

Undergraduate student 

(b) The following definitions apply to 

International Education Programs: 

Area studies means a program of 

comprehensive study of the aspects of a 

world area’s society or societies, 

including study of history, culture, 

economy, politics, international 

relations, and languages. 

Areas of national need means the 

various needs in the government, 

education, business, and nonprofit 

sectors for expertise in foreign language, 

area, and international studies 

identified by the Secretary as significant 

for maintaining or improving the 

security, stability, and economic vitality 

of the United States. 

Consortium of institutions of higher 

education means a group of institutions 

of higher education that have entered 

into a cooperative arrangement for the 

purpose of carrying out a common 

objective, or a public or private 

nonprofit agency, organization, or 

institution designated or created by a 

group of institutions of higher education 

for the purpose of carrying out a 

common objective on their behalf. 

Consultation on areas of national 

need means the process that allows the 

head officials of a wide range of Federal 

agencies to consult with the Secretary 

and provide recommendations regarding 

national needs for expertise in foreign 

languages and world areas that the 

Secretary may take into account when 

identifying areas of national need. 

Diverse perspectives means a variety 

of viewpoints relevant to understanding 

global or international issues in context, 

especially those derived from scholarly 

research or sustained professional 

activities and community engagement 

abroad, and relevant to building 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 contact hours 

per week during the academic year or 

the equivalent of a full academic year of 

language instruction during the 

summer. 

■ 5. Revise § 655.30 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 6. Amend § 655.31 by revising 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 655.31 What general selection criteria 

does the Secretary use? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Facilities (including but not 

limited to language laboratory, 

museums, or library) that the applicant 

plans to use are adequate; and 

* * * * * 

PART 656—NATIONAL RESOURCE 

CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN 

LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES OR 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND 

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

■ 7. Revise part 656 to read as follows: 

PART 656—NATIONAL RESOURCE 

CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN 

LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

656.1 What is the purpose of the National 

Resource Centers Program? 

656.2 What entities are eligible to receive a 

grant? 

656.3 What defines a comprehensive or 

undergraduate National Resource 

Center? 

656.4 For what special purposes may a 

Center receive an additional grant under 

this part? 

656.5 What regulations apply to this 

program? 

656.6 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

656.7 Severability. 

Subpart B—How does an eligible institution 

apply for a grant? 

656.10 How does an institution submit a 

grant application? 

656.11 What assurances and other 

information must an applicant include in 

an application? 

Subpart C—How does the Secretary make 

a grant? 

656.20 How does the Secretary select 

applications for funding? 

656.21 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an application 

for a comprehensive Center? 

656.22 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an application 

for an undergraduate Center? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13537 

656.23 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an application 

for an additional special purpose grant to 

a Center? 

656.24 What priorities may the Secretary 

establish? 

Subpart D—What conditions must be met 

by a grantee? 

656.30 What activities and costs are 

allowable? 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121, 1122, 1127, and 

1132 unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 656.1 What is the purpose of the National 

Resource Centers Program? 

Under the National Resource Centers 

Program for Foreign Language and Areas 

Studies (National Resource Centers 

Program), the Secretary awards grants to 

institutions of higher education and 

consortia of institutions to establish, 

strengthen, and operate comprehensive 

and undergraduate Centers that act 

cooperatively as national resources for— 

(a) Teaching of modern foreign 

languages, especially less commonly 

taught languages; 

(b) Instruction in fields of study 

needed to provide full understanding of 

areas, regions, or countries in which 

such languages are commonly used; 

(c) Research and training in 

international studies and the 

international and foreign language 

aspects of professional and other fields 

of study; and 

(d) Instruction and research on issues 

in world affairs that concern one or 

more countries. 

§ 656.2 What entities are eligible to receive 

a grant? 

(a) An institution of higher education 

or a consortium of institutions of higher 

education is eligible to receive a grant 

under this part as either a 

comprehensive Center or undergraduate 

Center. 

(b) An institution of higher education 

or a consortium of institutions of higher 

education that has received a grant 

under this part as either a 

comprehensive Center or undergraduate 

Center is eligible to receive an 

additional grant under this part for 

special purposes related to library 

collections, outreach, and summer 

institutes, as described in § 656.4. 

§ 656.3 What defines a comprehensive or 

undergraduate National Resource Center? 

(a) A Center’s area of focus must be 

aligned with all of the following: 

(1) A geographic world area that 

serves as the focus of research, teaching, 

training, and instruction. 

(2) Opportunities available at the 

institution for teaching, training, 

research, and instruction in specific 

languages, countries, regions, societies, 

or other units of analysis relevant to the 

chosen geographic world area. 

(b) A comprehensive Center is an 

administrative unit of an eligible 

institution of higher education that 

independently or through collaboration 

with other administrative units— 

(1) Provides intensive modern foreign 

language training, especially for less 

commonly taught languages, in the 

Center’s area of focus; 

(2) Contributes significantly to the 

national interest in advanced research 

and scholarship in the Center’s area of 

focus; 

(3) Employs a critical mass of scholars 

in diverse disciplines related to the 

Center’s area of focus; 

(4) Maintains important library 

collections related to the Center’s area of 

focus; 

(5) Makes training available in 

language and area studies in the 

Center’s area of focus, to graduate, 

postgraduate, and undergraduate 

students; 

(6) Addresses national needs for 

modern foreign language and area 

studies expertise and knowledge, 

including through, but not limited to, 

the placement of students into 

postgraduate employment, education, or 

training in areas of need; and 

(7) Disseminates information about 

the Center’s area of focus to audiences 

in the United States. 

(c) An undergraduate Center 

independently or through collaboration 

with other administrative units— 

(1) Teaches modern foreign languages, 

especially less commonly taught 

languages, related to the Center’s area of 

focus; 

(2) Prepares undergraduate students 

to matriculate into advanced modern 

foreign language and area studies 

programs and professional school 

programs; 

(3) Incorporates substantial content 

related to the Center’s area of focus into 

baccalaureate degree programs; 

(4) Engages in research and 

curriculum development designed to 

broaden knowledge and expertise 

related to the Center’s area of focus; 

(5) Employs faculty with strong 

language, area, and international studies 

credentials related to the Center’s area 

of focus; 

(6) Maintains library holdings 

sufficient to support high-quality 

training and instruction in the Center’s 

area of focus for undergraduate 

students; 

(7) Makes training available 

predominantly to undergraduate 

students in support of the objectives of 

an undergraduate institution; 

(8) Addresses national needs for 

language and area studies expertise and 

knowledge, including through, but not 

limited to, the placement of 

undergraduate students into 

postgraduate employment, education, or 

training in areas of need; and 

(9) Disseminates information about 

the Center’s area of focus to audiences 

in the United States. 

§ 656.4 For what special purposes may a 

Center receive an additional grant under 

this part? 

The Secretary may make additional 

grants to Centers for one or more of the 

following purposes: 

(a) Linkage or outreach between 

foreign language, area studies, and other 

international fields and professional 

schools and colleges. 

(b) Linkage or outreach with 2- and 4- 

year colleges and universities. 

(c) Linkage or outreach between or 

among— 

(1) Postsecondary programs or 

departments in foreign language, area 

studies, or other international fields; 

and 

(2) State educational agencies or local 

educational agencies. 

(d) Partnerships or programs of 

linkage and outreach with departments 

or agencies of Federal and State 

governments, including Federal or State 

scholarship programs for students in 

related areas. 

(e) Linkage or outreach with the news 

media, business, professional, or trade 

associations. 

(f) Summer institutes in area studies, 

foreign language, or other international 

fields designed to carry out the activities 

in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this 

section. 

(g) Maintenance of important library 

collections. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13538 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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. 

§ 656.7 Severability. 

If any provision of this part or its 

application to any person, act, or 

practice is held invalid, the remainder 

of the part or the application of its 

provisions to any other person, act, or 

practice will not be affected thereby. 

Subpart B—How does an eligible 

institution apply for a grant? 

§ 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. 

§ 656.11 What assurances and other 

information must an applicant include in an 

application? 

(a) Each institution of higher 

education, including each member of a 

consortium, applying for a grant under 

this part must provide all of the 

following: 

(1) An explanation of how the 

activities funded by the grant will 

reflect diverse perspectives, as defined 

in part 655, and a wide range of views 

and generate debate on world regions 

and international affairs. 

(2) A description of how the applicant 

will encourage government service in 

areas of national need, as identified by 

the Secretary, as well as in areas of need 

in the education, business, and 

nonprofit sectors. 

(b) An applicant must submit an 

Applicant Profile Form, as described in 

the application package. 

(c) Each consortium applying for an 

award under this part must submit a 

group agreement (consortium 

agreement) that addresses the required 

elements of 34 CFR 75.128 and 

describes a rationale for the formation of 

the consortium. 

Subpart C—How does the Secretary 

make a grant? 

§ 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 § 656.21, 

and for an undergraduate Center under 

the criteria contained in § 656.22. The 

Secretary evaluates applications for 

additional special purpose grants to 

Centers under the criteria contained in 

§ 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 § 656.3(a), are 

grouped together for purposes of review. 

Each application is reviewed for 

excellence based on the applicable 

criteria referenced in paragraph (a) of 

this section. Applications are then 

ranked within each area of focus. 

(d) The Secretary may determine a 

minimum total score required to 

demonstrate a sufficient degree of 

excellence to qualify for a grant under 

this part. 

(e) If insufficient money is available to 

fund all applications demonstrating a 

sufficient degree of excellence as 

determined under paragraphs (a), (c), 

and (d) of this section, the Secretary 

considers the degree to which priorities 

derived from the consultation on areas 

of national need or established under 

the provisions of § 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. 

§ 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 § 656.3(a). 

(2) The extent to which the Project 

Director and other staff are qualified to 

administer the proposed Center, 

including the degree to which they 

engage in ongoing professional 

development activities relevant to their 

roles at the proposed Center. 

(3) The adequacy of governance and 

oversight arrangements for the proposed 

Center, including the extent to which 

faculty from a variety of academic units 

participate in administration and 

oversee outreach activities, and, for a 

consortium, the extent to which the 

consortium agreement demonstrates 

commitment to a common objective. 

(4) The extent to which the institution 

provides or will provide financial, 

administrative, and other support to the 

operation of the proposed Center at a 

level sufficient to enable the 

administration of the proposed project 

and coordination of educational 

initiatives in the proposed Center’s area 

of focus. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

Center, as part of its nondiscriminatory 

employment practices for Center staff, 

encourages applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have been traditionally 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age or disability. 

(b) Quality of existing academic 

programs. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which the institution 

makes high-quality training, especially 

integrated interdisciplinary training in 

modern foreign languages and area 

studies, appropriate to the applicant’s 

area of focus, available in the curricula 

for graduate, professional, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13539 

undergraduate students in a wide 

variety of educational programs. 

(2) The extent to which the institution 

routinely provides language instruction, 

including intensive language 

instruction, relevant to the applicant’s 

area of focus at multiple levels, as well 

as the degree to which these offerings 

represent distinctive commitments to 

depth or breadth. 

(3) The extent to which qualified 

experts at the institution provide 

modern foreign language instruction in 

the applicant’s area of focus, as well as 

the degree to which this instruction 

utilizes stated performance goals for 

functional foreign language use and the 

degree to which stated performance 

goals are met or are likely to be met by 

students. 

(4) The extent to which the institution 

employs a critical mass of scholars in 

the applicant’s area of focus, including 

the degree to which the institution 

employs enough qualified tenured and 

tenure-track faculty with teaching and 

advising responsibilities to enable the 

applicant to carry out interdisciplinary 

instructional and training programs 

supported by sufficient depth and 

breadth of course offerings in the 

applicant’s area of focus. 

(c) Impact of existing activities and 

resources. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which the applicant, 

affiliated faculty, and institutional 

partners contribute significantly to the 

national interest in advanced research 

and scholarship related to the 

applicant’s area of focus. 

(2) The extent to which the 

institution’s library holdings (print and 

non-print, physical and digital, English 

and foreign language) and other research 

collections are important library 

collections in the applicant’s area of 

focus that support advanced training 

and research, including the degree to 

which holdings are made available to 

researchers throughout the United 

States, the degree to which collections 

include unique or rare resources, and 

the degree to which the collections are 

supported by experts in the applicant’s 

area of focus. 

(3) The extent to which the applicant, 

including affiliated faculty and 

institutional partners, generates 

information about the applicant’s area of 

focus, disseminates this information to 

various audiences in the United States, 

and effectively engages those audiences 

through sustained outreach activities at 

the regional and national levels that 

respond to the diverse needs of, for 

example, elementary and secondary 

schools, State educational agencies, 

postsecondary institutions, nonprofit 

organizations, businesses, the media, 

and Federal agencies. 

(4) The extent to which the 

applicant’s activities address national 

needs related to language and area 

studies expertise and knowledge, 

including, but not limited to, the 

applicant’s record in placing students 

into post-graduate employment, 

education, or training in areas of 

national need related to language and 

area studies knowledge. 

(d) Project design and rationale. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the outcomes 

of the proposed project are clearly 

specified, possible to achieve within the 

project period, and address specific gaps 

or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructure, or opportunities related 

to the Center’s area of focus, the purpose 

of the National Resource Centers 

Program described in § 656.1, and the 

comprehensive type of Center described 

in § 656.3(b). 

(2) The extent to which the project is 

likely to contribute to meeting national 

needs related to language and area 

studies expertise and knowledge, 

including, but not limited to, by 

outcomes and other stated efforts related 

to increasing the number of students 

that go into post-graduate employment, 

education, or training in areas of 

national need. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project is designed to build institutional 

capacity in the Center’s area of focus 

and sustain results beyond the project 

period. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project will reflect diverse perspectives, 

as defined in part 655, and a wide range 

of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs. 

(e) Project planning and budget. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are adequately described 

relative to their contribution to project 

outcomes. 

(2) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are of high quality, including 

the degree to which they align with the 

purpose of the National Resource 

Centers program described in § 656.1, 

the comprehensive type of Center 

described in § 656.3(b), and the 

proposed project’s outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

timeline of activities and other 

application materials, such as letters of 

support, demonstrate the feasibility of 

completing proposed activities during 

the project period. 

(4) The extent to which all costs are 

itemized in the budget narrative and the 

costs are reasonable in relation to the 

objectives, design, and potential 

significance of the proposed project. 

(f) Quality of project evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

independence, of the evaluator(s). 

§ 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 § 656.3(a). 

(2) The extent to which the Project 

Director and other staff are qualified to 

administer the proposed Center, 

including the degree to which they 

engage in ongoing professional 

development activities relevant to their 

roles at the proposed Center. 

(3) The adequacy of governance and 

oversight arrangements for the proposed 

Center, including the extent to which 

faculty from a variety of academic units 

participate in administration and 

oversee outreach activities, and, for a 

consortium, the extent to which the 

consortium agreement demonstrates 

commitment to a common objective. 

(4) The extent to which the institution 

provides or will provide financial, 

administrative, and other support to the 

operation of the proposed Center at a 

level sufficient to enable the 

administration of the proposed project 

and coordination of educational 

initiatives in the proposed Center’s area 

of focus. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

Center, as part of its nondiscriminatory 

employment practices for Center staff, 

encourages applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have been traditionally 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age or disability. 

(b) Quality of existing academic 

programs. The Secretary reviews each 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13540 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which the institution 

makes high-quality training, especially 

integrated interdisciplinary training in 

modern foreign language and area or 

international studies, appropriate to the 

applicant’s area of focus, available in 

educational programs predominantly for 

undergraduate students in support of 

the objectives of the undergraduate 

institution. 

(2) The extent to which the institution 

routinely provides language instruction 

relevant to the applicant’s area of focus, 

as well as the degree to which these 

offerings represent distinctive 

commitments to depth or breadth of 

coverage. 

(3) The extent to which qualified 

experts at the institution provide 

modern foreign language instruction in 

the applicant’s area of focus, as well as 

the degree to which this instruction 

utilizes stated performance goals for 

functional foreign language use and the 

degree to which stated performance 

goals are met or are likely to be met by 

students. 

(4) The extent to which the institution 

employs faculty with strong language, 

area, and international studies 

credentials related to the applicant’s 

area of focus, including the degree to 

which the institution employs enough 

qualified tenured and tenure-track 

faculty with teaching and advising 

responsibilities, to enable the applicant 

to carry out instructional and training 

programs supported by sufficient depth 

and breadth of course offerings 

predominantly for undergraduate 

students in the applicant’s area of focus. 

(c) Impact of existing activities and 

resources. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

predominantly prepares undergraduate 

students to matriculate into advanced 

language and area studies programs and 

professional school programs, especially 

through curriculum design, 

requirements for student research or 

study abroad opportunities, support for 

relevant internship or other cocurricular opportunities, or specialized 

advising. 

(2) The extent to which the 

institution’s library holdings (print and 

non-print, physical and digital, English 

and foreign language), other research 

collections, and staffing predominantly 

support undergraduate training in the 

applicant’s area of focus through the 

provision of basic reference works, 

journals, and works in translation. 

(3) The extent to which the applicant, 

including affiliated faculty and 

institutional partners, generate 

information about the applicant’s area of 

focus, disseminate this information to 

various audiences in the United States, 

and effectively engage those audiences 

through sustained outreach activities at 

the regional and national levels that 

respond to the diverse needs of, for 

example, elementary and secondary 

schools, State educational agencies, 

postsecondary institutions, nonprofit 

organizations, businesses, the media, 

and Federal agencies. 

(4) The extent to which the 

applicant’s activities address national 

needs related to language and area 

studies expertise and knowledge, 

including, but not limited to, the 

applicant’s record in placing 

undergraduate students into postgraduate employment, education, or 

training in areas of national need related 

to language and area studies knowledge. 

(d) Project design and rationale. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the outcomes 

of the proposed project are clearly 

specified, possible to achieve within the 

project period, and address specific gaps 

or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructure, or opportunities related 

to the Center’s area of focus, the purpose 

of the National Resource Centers 

program described in § 656.1, and the 

undergraduate type of Center described 

in § 656.3(c). 

(2) The extent to which the project is 

likely to contribute to meeting national 

needs related to language and area 

studies expertise and knowledge, 

including, but not limited to, by 

outcomes and other stated efforts related 

to increasing the number of 

undergraduate students that go into 

post-graduate employment, education, 

or training in areas of national need. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project is designed to build institutional 

capacity in the Center’s area of focus 

and sustain results beyond the project 

period. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project will reflect diverse perspectives, 

as defined in part 655, and a wide range 

of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs. 

(e) Project planning and budget. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are adequately described 

relative to their contribution to project 

outcomes. 

(2) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are of high quality, including 

the degree to which they align with the 

purpose of the National Resource 

Centers program as described in § 656.1, 

the undergraduate type of Center 

described in § 656.3(c), and the 

proposed project’s outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

timeline of activities and other 

application materials, such as letters of 

support, demonstrate the feasibility of 

completing proposed activities during 

the project period. 

(4) The extent to which all costs are 

itemized in the budget narrative and the 

costs are reasonable in relation to the 

objectives, design, and potential 

significance of the proposed project. 

(f) Quality of project evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

independence, of the evaluator(s). 

§ 656.23 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an application for 

an additional special purpose grant to a 

Center? 

The Secretary evaluates an 

application for a special purpose grant 

on the basis of one or more of the 

criteria in this section. 

(a) Project design and rationale. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the project 

aligns with the Center’s approved area 

of focus under § 656.3(a) and proposes 

at least one type of activity contained in 

§ 656.4(a)–(g). 

(2) The extent to which the outcomes 

of the proposed project are clearly 

specified, possible to achieve within the 

project period, and address specific gaps 

or weaknesses in services, 

infrastructure, or opportunities related 

the Center’s area of focus, the purpose 

of the National Resource Centers 

program described in § 656.1, and the 

appropriate type of Center described in 

§ 656.3(b)–(c). 

(3) The extent to which the project is 

likely to contribute to meeting national 

needs related to language and area 

studies knowledge or expertise. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project is designed to build institutional 

capacity and sustain results beyond the 

project period. 

(b) Project planning and budget. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are adequately described 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13541 

relative to their contribution to project 

outcomes. 

(2) The extent to which all proposed 

activities are of high quality, including 

the degree to which they align with the 

purpose of the National Resource 

Centers program as described in § 656.1, 

the appropriate type of Center described 

in § 656.3(b)–(c), and the proposed 

project’s intended outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

timeline of activities and other 

application materials, such as letters of 

support, demonstrate the feasibility of 

completing proposed activities during 

the project period. 

(4) The extent to which all costs are 

itemized in the budget narrative and the 

costs are reasonable in relation to the 

objectives, design, and potential 

significance of the proposed project. 

(c) Key personnel and project 

operations. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which project 

personnel are qualified to oversee and 

carry out the proposed project. 

(2) The adequacy of staffing, 

governance, and oversight 

arrangements, and, for a consortium, the 

extent to which the consortium 

agreement demonstrates commitment to 

a common objective. 

(d) Quality of project evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

independence, of the evaluator(s). 

§ 656.24 What priorities may the Secretary 

establish? 

(a) The Secretary may select one or 

more of the following funding priorities: 

(1) Specific world areas, countries, or 

societies. 

(2) Instruction of specific modern 

foreign languages. 

(3) Modern foreign language 

instruction at a specific level or degree 

of intensity, such as intermediate or 

advanced language instruction, or 

instruction at an intensity of 10 contact 

hours or more per week. 

(4) Specific areas of national need for 

expertise in foreign languages and world 

areas derived from the consultation with 

Federal agencies on areas of national 

need. 

(5) Specific area of focus, such as a 

world area or a portion of a world area, 

e.g., a single country or society, in 

addition to a specific topic, e.g., 

economic cooperation, cybersecurity, 

energy, climate change, translation, 

genocide prevention, or migration. 

(b) The Secretary may select one or 

more of the activities listed in § 656.4 or 

§ 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? 

§ 656.30 What activities and costs are 

allowable? 

(a) Allowable activities and costs. 

Except as provided under paragraph (b) 

of this section, a grant awarded under 

this part may be used to pay all or part 

of the cost of establishing, 

strengthening, or operating a 

comprehensive or undergraduate Center 

including, but not limited to, the cost of 

the following: 

(1) Supporting instructors of the less 

commonly taught languages. 

(2) Creating, expanding, or improving 

opportunities for the formal study of the 

less commonly taught languages related 

to the Center’s area of focus. 

(3) Creating or operating summer 

institutes in the United States or abroad 

designed to provide modern foreign 

language and area training in the 

Center’s area of focus. 

(4) Cooperating with other Centers to 

conduct projects that address issues of 

world, regional, cross-regional, 

international, or global importance. 

(5) Bringing visiting scholars and 

faculty to the Center to teach, conduct 

research, or participate in conferences 

or workshops. 

(6) Disseminating information about 

the Center’s area of focus to various 

audiences in the United States through 

domestic outreach activities involving, 

for example, elementary and secondary 

schools, postsecondary institutions, 

businesses, and the media. 

(7) Funding library acquisitions, the 

maintenance of library collections, or 

efforts to enhance access to library 

collections. 

(8) Establishing and maintaining 

linkages with overseas institutions of 

higher education and other 

organizations that may contribute to the 

teaching and research of the Center’s 

area of focus. 

(9) Creating, obtaining, modifying, or 

improving access to teaching and 

research materials. 

(10) Creating, expanding, or 

improving activities or teaching 

materials that are intended to increase 

modern foreign language proficiency 

among students in the science, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics fields. 

(11) Conducting projects that 

encourage and prepare students to seek 

employment relevant to the Center’s 

area of focus in areas of national need. 

(12) Planning or developing 

curriculum. 

(13) Engaging in professional 

development of the Center’s faculty and 

staff. 

(14) Funding salaries and travel for 

faculty and staff. 

(b) Limitations. The following are 

limitations on allowable activities and 

costs: 

(1) Equipment costs exceeding 10 

percent of the grant are not allowable. 

(2) Undergraduate student travel is 

only allowable if the costs are preapproved by the Secretary and the travel 

is made in conjunction with a formal 

program of supervised study in the 

Center’s area of focus. 

(3) Grant funds may not be used to 

supplant funds normally used by 

grantees for purposes of this part. 

(4) Personnel and related costs 

associated with compensation for the 

Project Director are not allowable. 

(5) Personnel costs and other costs 

related to the compensation of 

individuals exceeding 50 percent of a 

full time equivalent for any individual 

not directly engaged in the instruction 

of a less commonly taught language are 

not allowable. 

(6) Costs for international travel are 

only allowable if a Center has obtained 

pre-approval from the Secretary. 

(7) Activities must be relevant to the 

Center’s area of focus and the type of 

Center. 

PART 657—FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND 

AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS 

PROGRAM 

■ 8. Revise part 657 to read as follows: 

PART 657—FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND 

AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS 

PROGRAM 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

657.1 What is the Foreign Language and 

Area Studies Fellowships Program? 

657.2 What entities are eligible to receive 

an allocation of fellowships? 

657.3 What are the instructional and 

administrative requirements for an 

allocation of fellowships? 

657.4 Who is eligible to receive a 

fellowship? 

657.5 What is the amount of a fellowship? 

657.6 What regulations apply to this 

program? 

657.7 What definitions apply to this 

program? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13542 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

657.8 Severability. 

Subpart B—How does an eligible institution 

or student apply? 

657.10 How does an institution submit a 

grant application? 

657.11 What assurances and other 

information must an applicant 

institution include in an application? 

657.12 How does a student apply for a 

fellowship? 

Subpart C—How does the secretary make a 

grant? 

657.20 How does the Secretary select 

institutional applications for funding? 

657.21 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an institutional 

application for an allocation of 

fellowships? 

657.22 What priorities may the Secretary 

establish? 

Subpart D—What conditions must be met 

by institutional grantees and fellows? 

657.30 What are the limitations on 

fellowships and the use of fellowship 

funds? 

657.31 What is the payment procedure for 

fellowships? 

657.32 Under what circumstances must an 

institution terminate a fellowship? 

657.33 What are the reporting requirements 

for grantee institutions and for 

individual fellows who receive funds 

under this program? 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122 and 1132–3, 

unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 657.1 What is the Foreign Language and 

Area Studies Fellowships Program? 

Under the Foreign Language and Area 

Studies Fellowships Program, the 

Secretary provides allocations of 

fellowships to Centers and other 

administrative units at eligible 

institutions of higher education that 

award the fellowships on a competitive 

basis to undergraduate or graduate 

students who are undergoing advanced 

training in modern foreign languages 

and area studies. 

§ 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. 

§ 657.3 What are the instructional and 

administrative requirements for an 

allocation of fellowships? 

(a) An allocation of fellowships must 

support area studies and language 

instruction that aligns with— 

(1) A geographic world area that 

serves as the focus of training and 

instruction; 

(2) Languages specific to the world 

area of focus; and 

(3) Existing programs or proposed 

instructional programs that will be 

developed and implemented during the 

grant period. 

(b) An allocation of fellowships must 

be administered according to the 

institution’s written plan for 

distributing fellowships and allowances 

to eligible fellows for training and 

instruction during the academic year or 

summer, provided that— 

(1) The fellowship types are described 

in the budget narrative of an application 

selected for funding under this part; or 

(2) The Secretary has approved any 

proposed changes to an approved Center 

or Program’s plan. 

§ 657.4 Who is eligible to receive a 

fellowship? 

A student must satisfy all of the 

following criteria during the fellowship 

period to be eligible to receive a 

fellowship from an approved Center or 

Program: 

(a) The student is a— 

(1) Citizen or national of the United 

States; or 

(2) Permanent resident of the United 

States. 

(b) The student is accepted for 

enrollment, is enrolled, or will continue 

to be enrolled in the institution 

receiving an allocation of fellowships. 

(c) The student is pursuing an 

educational program that— 

(1) Includes instruction or a 

demonstration of proficiency in a 

modern foreign language related to the 

allocation of fellowships; and 

(2) Includes instruction or, for 

graduate students, supervised research 

related to the allocation of fellowships 

in— 

(i) Area studies; or 

(ii) The international aspects of 

professional fields and other fields of 

study, including but not limited to 

science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics fields. 

(d) The student demonstrates— 

(1) Commitment to the study of a 

world area relevant to the allocation of 

fellowships; and 

(2) Potential for high academic 

achievement based on such indices as 

grade point average, class ranking, or 

similar measures that the institution 

may determine. 

(e) The student is engaged in modern 

foreign language training or instruction 

in a language— 

(1) That is relevant to the student’s 

educational program, as described in 

paragraph (c) of this section, as well as 

the allocation of fellowships; and 

(2) For which the institution or 

program has developed or is developing 

performance goals for foreign language 

use, and in the case of summer 

programs has received approval from 

the Secretary. 

(f) The student must engage in the 

type of training appropriate to their 

degree status: 

(1) Undergraduate students must 

engage in the study of a less commonly 

taught language at the intermediate or 

advanced level. 

(2) Non-dissertation or predissertation 

level graduate students must— 

(i) Engage in the study of a modern 

foreign language at the intermediate or 

advanced level; or 

(ii) Engage in the study of a modern 

foreign language at the 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. 

§ 657.5 What is the amount of a 

fellowship? 

(a) Each fellowship consists of a 

stipend and any additional allowances 

permitted under this part, as determined 

by the Secretary and as allocated by an 

approved Center or Program. 

(b) The Secretary announces the 

following in a notice published in the 

Federal Register: 

(1) The amounts of the stipend for an 

academic year. 

(2) The amounts of the stipend for a 

summer session. 

(3) Whether travel allowances will be 

permitted. 

(4) Whether dependents’ allowances 

will be permitted. 

(5) The amounts of any permitted 

allowances. 

§ 657.6 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 657. 

§ 657.7 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

The following definitions apply to 

this part: 

(a) The definitions in 34 CFR 655.4. 

(b) The following definitions, unless 

otherwise specified: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13543 

Approved center means an 

administrative unit of an institution of 

higher education that has both received 

an allocation of fellowships under this 

part and a grant to operate a Center 

under 34 CFR part 656. 

Approved program means a 

concentration of educational resources 

and activities in modern foreign 

language training and area studies with 

the administrative capacity to 

administer an allocation of fellowships 

under this part. 

Fellow means a person who receives 

a fellowship under this part. 

Fellowship means the payment a 

fellow receives under this part. 

Stipend means the portion of the 

fellowship paid by the grantee to a 

fellow in support of living expenses and 

the costs associated with advanced 

training in a modern foreign language 

and area studies. 

§ 657.8 Severability. 

If any provision of this part or its 

application to any person, act, or 

practice is held invalid, the remainder 

of the part or the application of its 

provisions to any other person, act, or 

practice will not be affected thereby. 

Subpart B—How does an eligible 

institution or student apply? 

§ 657.10 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. 

§ 657.11 What assurances and other 

information must an applicant institution 

include in an application? 

(a) Each eligible institution of higher 

education, including each member of a 

consortium of institutions of higher 

education, applying for an allocation of 

fellowships 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. 

(3) An estimated number of the 

students at the applicant institution 

who currently meet the fellowship 

eligibility requirements. 

(b) Each applicant institution must 

submit the Applicant Profile Form 

provided in the FLAS Fellowships 

Program application package. 

(c) Each consortium of institutions of 

higher education applying for an award 

under this part must submit a group 

agreement (consortium agreement) that 

addresses the required elements in 34 

CFR 75.128 and describes a rationale for 

the formation of the consortium. 

§ 657.12 How does a student apply for a 

fellowship? 

(a) A student must apply for a 

fellowship directly to an approved 

Center or Program at an institution of 

higher education that has received an 

allocation of fellowships according to 

the application procedures established 

by that approved Center or Program. 

(b) Individual applicants must 

provide sufficient information to enable 

the approved Center or Program at the 

institution to determine the applicant’s 

eligibility to receive a fellowship and 

whether the student should be selected 

according to the selection process 

established by the approved Center or 

Program. 

Subpart C—How does the Secretary 

make a grant? 

§ 657.20 How does the Secretary select 

institutional applications for funding? 

(a) The Secretary evaluates an 

institutional application for an 

allocation of fellowships on the basis of 

the quality of the applicant’s Center or 

program in modern foreign language 

and area studies training. The 

applicant’s Center or program is 

evaluated and approved under the 

criteria in § 657.21. 

(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 § 657.3(a), are 

grouped together for purposes of review. 

Each application is reviewed for 

excellence based on the applicable 

criteria referenced in paragraph (a) of 

this section. Applications are then 

ranked within each area of focus. 

(d) The Secretary may determine a 

minimum total score required to 

demonstrate a sufficient degree of 

excellence to qualify for a grant under 

this part. 

(e) If insufficient money is available to 

fund all applications demonstrating a 

sufficient degree of excellence as 

determined under paragraphs (a), (c), 

and (d) of this section, the Secretary 

considers the degree to which priorities 

derived from the consultation on areas 

of national need or established under 

the provisions of § 657.22 and relating 

to specific countries, world areas, or 

languages are served when selecting 

applications for funding and 

determining the amount of a grant. 

§ 657.21 What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use to evaluate an institutional 

application for an allocation of fellowships? 

The Secretary evaluates an 

institutional application for an 

allocation of fellowships on the basis of 

the criteria in this section. 

(a) Scope, personnel, and operations. 

The Secretary reviews each application 

to determine one or more of the 

following: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

allocation of fellowships meets the 

requirements in § 657.3(a). 

(2) The extent to which the Project 

Director and other staff are qualified to 

administer the proposed allocation of 

fellowships, including the degree to 

which they engage in ongoing 

professional development activities 

relevant to their roles. 

(3) The adequacy of governance and 

oversight arrangements for the proposed 

allocation of fellowships, and, for a 

consortium, the extent to which the 

consortium agreement demonstrates 

commitment to a common objective. 

(4) The extent to which the institution 

provides or will provide financial, 

administrative, and other support to the 

administration of the proposed 

allocation of fellowships. 

(b) Quality of curriculum and 

instruction. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) 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. 

(2) The levels of instruction offered 

for the modern foreign languages 

relevant to the proposed allocation of 

fellowships, including intensive 

language instruction, and the frequency 

with which the courses are offered. 

(3) The extent to which the 

institution’s instruction in modern 

foreign languages relevant to the 

proposed allocation of fellowships is 

using or developing stated performance 

goals for functional foreign language 

use, as well as the degree to which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
13544 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

stated performance goals are met or are 

likely to be met by students. 

(4) The extent to which instruction in 

modern foreign languages is integrated 

with area studies courses, for example, 

area studies courses taught in modern 

foreign languages. 

(c) Quality of faculty and academic 

resources. The Secretary reviews each 

application to determine one or more of 

the following: 

(1) The extent to which the institution 

employs faculty with strong language, 

area, and international studies 

credentials related to the proposed 

allocation of fellowships, including 

enough qualified tenured and tenuretrack faculty with teaching and advising 

responsibilities to enable the applicant 

to carry out the instructional and 

training programs in the applicant’s area 

of focus. 

(2) The extent to which the applicant 

provides or will provide students who 

will be served by the proposed 

allocation of fellowships with 

substantive academic and career 

advising services that address the 

potential uses of their foreign language 

and area studies knowledge and 

training. 

(3) The extent to which the 

institution’s library holdings (print and 

non-print, physical and digital, English 

and foreign language), other research 

collections, and relevant staff support 

those who will be served by the 

proposed allocation of fellowships. 

(4) The extent to which the applicant 

has established formal arrangements for 

students to conduct research or study 

abroad relevant to the proposed 

allocation of fellowships and the extent 

to which these arrangements are used. 

(d) Project design and rationale. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

allocation of fellowships aligns with the 

applicant’s educational programs, 

instructional resources, and language 

and area studies course offerings; and 

the ease of access to relevant instruction 

and training opportunities, including 

training from external providers. 

(2) The applicant’s record of placing 

students into post-graduate 

employment, education, or training in 

areas of national need and the 

applicant’s efforts to increase the 

number of such students that go into 

such placement. 

(3) The extent to which the allocation 

of fellowships will contribute to 

meeting national needs related to 

language and area studies expertise and 

support the generation of information 

for and dissemination of information to 

the public. 

(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 the process 

for selecting fellows is thoroughly 

described and of high quality, including 

the institution-wide fellowship 

recruitment and advertisement process, 

the student application process, the 

FLAS Fellowships Program selection 

criteria and priorities, any supplemental 

institutional requirements consistent 

with the FLAS Fellowships Program 

requirements, the composition of the 

institution’s selection committee, and 

the timeline for selecting and notifying 

students. 

(2) The extent to which the institution 

requesting an allocation of fellowships 

identifies barriers, if any, to equitable 

access to and participation in the FLAS 

Fellowships Program and how the 

institution proposes to address these 

barriers. 

(3) The extent to which the requested 

amount and proposed distribution of the 

allocation of fellowships is reasonable 

relative to the potential pool of eligible 

students with a demonstrated interest in 

relevant modern foreign language and 

area studies training and instruction. 

(f) Quality of project evaluation. The 

Secretary reviews each application to 

determine one or more of the following: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and 

appropriate to the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide performance 

feedback and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant training, experience, and 

independence, of the evaluator(s). 

§ 657.22 What priorities may the Secretary 

establish? 

(a) The Secretary may establish one or 

more of the following priorities for the 

allocation of fellowships: 

(1) Instruction, training, or research in 

specific languages or all languages 

related to specific world areas. 

(2) Programs of language instruction 

with stated performance goals for 

functional foreign language use or that 

are developing such performance goals. 

(3) Instruction, training, or research 

related to specific world areas. 

(4) Academic terms, such as academic 

year or summer. 

(5) Levels of language offerings. 

(6) Academic disciplines, such as 

linguistics or sociology. 

(7) Professional studies, such as 

business, law, or education. 

(8) Instruction, training, or research in 

particular subjects, such as population 

growth and planning or international 

trade and business. 

(9) 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. 

(10) A combination of any of these 

categories. 

(b) The Secretary announces any 

priorities in the application notice 

published in the Federal Register. 

Subpart D—What conditions must be 

met by institutional grantees and 

fellows? 

§ 657.30 What are the limitations on 

fellowships and the use of fellowship 

funds? 

(a) Distance or online education. 

Fellows may satisfy course requirements 

through instruction offered in person or, 

with the Secretary’s prior approval, via 

distance education or hybrid formats. 

Correspondence courses do not satisfy 

program course requirements. 

(b) Duration and purpose. An 

approved Center or Program may award 

a fellowship for any of the following 

combinations of duration and purpose: 

(1) One academic year, provided that 

the fellow enrolls in one language 

course per term and at least two area 

studies courses per year. 

(2) One academic year for dissertation 

research abroad, provided that the 

fellow is a doctoral candidate, uses 

advanced training in at least one 

modern foreign language in the 

research, and has a work plan approved 

by the Secretary. 

(3) One academic year for dissertation 

writing, provided that the fellow is a 

doctoral candidate, uses advanced 

training in at least one modern foreign 

language for the dissertation, and has a 

work plan approved by the Secretary. 

(4) One summer session if the summer 

session provides the fellow with the 

equivalent of one academic year of 

instruction in a modern foreign 

language. 

(5) Other durations approved by the 

Secretary to accommodate exceptional 

circumstances that would enable a 

fellow to complete an appropriate 

amount of coursework, dissertation 

writing, or dissertation research. 

(c) Internships. The Secretary may 

approve the use of a fellowship to 

support an internship for an eligible 

fellow. 

(d) Program administration costs. 

This program does not allow 

administrative expenses. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13545 

(e) Selection of fellowship recipients. 

Approved Centers or Programs must 

select students to receive fellowships 

using the selection process described in 

the grant application submitted to the 

Department, or using any subsequent 

modifications to the selection process 

that have been approved by the 

Secretary. 

(f) Study outside the United States. 

Before awarding a fellowship for use 

outside the United States, an institution 

must obtain the approval of the 

Secretary. The Secretary may approve 

the use of a fellowship outside the 

United States if the student is— 

(1) Enrolled in an educational 

program abroad, approved by the 

institution at which the student is 

enrolled in the United States, for study 

of a foreign language at an intermediate 

or advanced level or at the beginning 

level if appropriate equivalent 

instruction is not available in the United 

States; or 

(2) Engaged during the academic year 

in research that cannot be done 

effectively in the United States and is 

affiliated with an institution of higher 

education or other appropriate 

organization in the host country. 

(g) Support from other Federal 

agencies. Recipients of fellowships 

under this part may accept concurrent 

awards from other Federal agencies 

such as Boren Fellowships and Critical 

Language Scholarships, provided that 

the other Federal awards are not used to 

pay for the same activity or cost 

allocated to the recipient’s fellowship. 

(h) Transfer of funds. Institutions may 

not transfer funds from their allocation 

of fellowships to any outside entity, 

including other approved Centers or 

Programs, unless the funds are 

transferred directly to an instructional 

program provider to cover the costs for 

the institution’s own fellows to attend 

training programs carried out by the 

instructional program provider during 

the academic year or a summer session. 

The transfer of funds to any 

instructional program providers located 

outside the United Stated must be preapproved by the Secretary. 

(i) Undergraduate travel. No funds 

may be expended under this part for 

undergraduate travel except in 

accordance with rules prescribed by the 

Secretary setting forth policies and 

procedures to assure that Federal funds 

made available for such travel are 

expended as part of a formal program of 

supervised study. 

(j) Vacancies. If a fellow vacates a 

fellowship before the end of an award 

period, the institution receiving the 

allocation of fellowships may award the 

balance of the fellowship to another 

student if— 

(1) The student meets the eligibility 

requirements in § 657.4 and was 

selected in accordance with paragraph 

(e) of this section; 

(2) The remaining fellowship period 

comprises at least one full academic 

quarter, semester, trimester, or summer 

session; and 

(3) The amount of available funds is 

sufficient to award a full fellowship for 

the duration described in paragraph 

(j)(2) of this section. 

§ 657.31 What is the payment procedure 

for fellowships? 

(a) An institution must award a 

stipend to fellowship recipients. 

(b) An institution must pay the 

stipend and any other allowances to the 

fellow in installments during the term of 

the academic year fellowship. 

(c) An institution may make a 

payment only to a fellow who is in good 

standing and is making satisfactory 

progress. 

(d) The institution must make 

appropriate adjustments of any 

overpayment or underpayment to a 

fellow. 

(e) Any payments made for less than 

the full duration of a fellowship must be 

prorated to reflect the actual duration of 

the fellowship. 

§ 657.32 Under what circumstances must 

an institution terminate a fellowship? 

An institution must terminate a 

fellowship if— 

(a) The fellow is not making 

satisfactory progress, is no longer 

enrolled, or is no longer in good 

standing at the institution; or 

(b) The fellow fails to follow the 

course of study in modern foreign 

language and area studies, for which the 

fellow applied, unless a revised course 

of study is otherwise approved under 

this part. 

§ 657.33 What are the reporting 

requirements for grantee institutions and 

for individual fellows who receive funds 

under this program? 

Each institution of higher education, 

each member in a consortium of 

institutions of higher education, and 

each individual fellowship recipient 

under this program must submit 

performance reports, in such form and 

at such time as required by the 

Secretary. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1132–3) 

[FR Doc. 2024–03149 Filed 2–21–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3