Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship Program and Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program, 16924-16932 [2023-05725]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16924-16932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05725]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 662 and 663

[Docket ID ED-2023-OPE-0009]
RIN 1840-AD90


Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship 
Program and Faculty Research Abroad Fellowship Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations that govern 
the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 
Fellowship Program and the Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) Fellowship 
Program. The proposed changes would revise language proficiency 
qualifications for DDRA and FRA applicants and clarify the Secretary's 
discretionary use of eligibility criteria.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at Regulations.gov. However, if you require an accommodation or 
cannot otherwise submit your comments via Regulations.gov, please

[[Page 16925]]

contact the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. The Department will not accept comments submitted by fax or by 
email or comments submitted after the comment period closes. To ensure 
that the Department does not receive duplicate copies, please submit 
your comments only once. Additionally, please include the Docket ID at 
the top of your comments.
    The Department strongly encourages you to submit any comments or 
attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in 
Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), the Department strongly 
encourages you to convert the PDF to ``print-to-PDF'' format, or to use 
some other commonly used searchable text format. Please do not submit 
the PDF in a scanned format. Using a print-to-PDF format allows the 
Department to electronically search and copy certain portions of your 
submissions to assist in the rulemaking process.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Please go to 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 https://www.regulations.gov. 
Therefore, commenters should include in their comments only 
information that they wish to make publicly available. Commenters 
should not include in their comments any information that identifies 
other individuals or that permits readers to identify other 
individuals. The Department reserves the right to redact at any time 
any information that identifies other individuals or that permits 
readers to identify other individuals.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Pamela J. Maimer, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 258-24, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6891. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to 
submit comments regarding the proposed regulations. To ensure that your 
comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we 
urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed 
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your 
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
    We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (explained further 
below) and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that 
might result from the proposed regulations. Please let us know of any 
further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential 
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of 
the Department's programs and activities. The Department also welcomes 
comments on any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed in the 
proposed regulations.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect public 
comments about the proposed regulations by accessing 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

    The DDRA Fellowship Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.022A, 
provides opportunities for doctoral students to engage in dissertation 
research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies. The 
program is designed to contribute to the development and improvement of 
the study of modern foreign languages and area studies in the United 
States, and to increase scholars' knowledge of the culture of the 
people in the countries or regions of research. The program provides 
fellowships to doctoral candidates who are planning a teaching career 
in the United States upon completion of their programs and who possess 
sufficient foreign language skills in the country or countries of 
research to carry out the dissertation research project. See 34 CFR 
part 662; 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
    The FRA Fellowship Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.019A, 
provides opportunities for faculty members teaching modern foreign 
languages or area studies at U.S. institutions of higher education to 
engage in research abroad in those languages or areas studied. The 
program is designed to contribute to the faculty members' foreign 
language skills and to increase knowledge of the culture of the people 
in the countries or regions of research. See 34 CFR part 663; 22 U.S.C. 
2452(b)(6).
    The regulations for both programs were last revised in 1998. 
Currently, under both the DDRA regulations (Sec.  662.21(c)(3)) and the 
FRA regulations (Sec.  663.21(c)(3)), the Secretary awards points for 
an applicant's language proficiency in the country or countries of 
research. Under the current regulations, however, the Secretary does 
not take into consideration the language proficiency of those who are 
seeking to conduct research in their native languages through 
Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3). As a consequence, native 
speakers applying to the DDRA and FRA programs are not eligible to 
receive qualitative points for language proficiency based on Sections 
662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) if they propose to conduct research in a 
host country using their native language.
    We propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to provide 
eligibility for points based on Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 
663.21(c)(3) for applicants conducting research projects in any 
language in which they have proficiency, other than English, to receive 
up to the full amount of points available for this criterion based on 
their individual level of proficiency. While the Department had a 
reasonable basis for the prior version of this criterion that was 
grounded in the purposes of the DDRA and FRA programs, the Department's 
updated consideration of these programs as they have evolved over time 
has led to the conclusion that this change will better promote fairness 
in the application review process for native speakers of languages 
other than English.
    The proposed revisions would be consistent with the statutory 
framework for the DDRA and FRA programs. Allowing native speakers to 
receive points based on Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) for 
conducting research projects in any language in which they have 
proficiency, other than English, would support the statutory goal of 
``promoting modern foreign language training and area studies in United 
States schools[.]'' 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6).
    The proposed changes to these regulations would also bring the DDRA 
and FRA programs into better alignment with other comparable foreign 
language and international area studies grants, which do not contain an 
exception or exclusion for native language skills other than English. 
The Fulbright U.S. Student and U.S. Scholar Programs

[[Page 16926]]

managed by the Department of State, for example, require that an 
applicant's language skills match the proposed host country's 
requirements, and that the applicant demonstrate language proficiency 
commensurate with the nature of the proposed project, without regard to 
the applicant's native language.
    We also propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to adopt a 
new selection criterion within Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c) that 
will consider the steps taken by the applicant to improve proficiency 
in the language of study and ensure adequate preparation for the 
proposed research project. The Department believes this criterion will 
support the DDRA program's goal of promoting modern foreign language 
training ``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by 
allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their 
language in a domestic academic setting.
    Finally, we propose to revise the DDRA and FRA regulations to give 
the Secretary flexibility under Sec. Sec.  662.21(c) and 663.21(c) to 
choose among the regulated selection criteria that will be considered 
in each application cycle when assessing applicant qualifications. The 
Department believes this change will increase flexibility when 
implementing these programs to account for changing Departmental 
priorities for international and foreign language education, while 
still allowing the Department to select among the most qualified 
applicants for funding.

Summary of Proposed Regulations

    The proposed changes would--
     Amend Sec.  662.21(c) of the DDRA regulations to allow 
awarding of full points under criterion (c)(3) to applicants conducting 
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other 
than English. The proposed change will better promote fairness in the 
application review process for native speakers of languages other than 
English.
    The proposed regulations would also more fully account for 
proficiency by considering the steps an applicant has taken to improve 
their language proficiency in support of the proposed research project. 
The Department believes this criterion will support the DDRA program's 
goal of promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and 
universities'' by allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken 
to improve their language proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would give the Secretary 
discretion to determine which factors will be considered in reviewing 
applicant qualifications. The proposed change would increase 
flexibility to implement the program within statutory requirements and 
ensure each year's program implementation conforms with Departmental 
priorities for international and foreign language education set under 
Sec.  662.21(d). This proposed change would serve to bring DDRA into 
alignment with other Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to 
select among the regulated selection criteria when determining which 
criteria will be emphasized in a particular competition year to account 
for changing Departmental priorities while still allowing the 
Department to select among the most qualifies applicants. As proposed, 
the Secretary would be able to eliminate or assign no value to a 
selection criterion in a particular competition year without undergoing 
rulemaking if it was determined that the particular criterion would not 
further that year's program priorities.
     Amend the FRA regulation at Sec.  663.21(c) to allow 
awarding of full points for this criterion to applicants conducting 
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other 
than English. The proposed change will better promote fairness in the 
application review process for native speakers of languages other than 
English. The proposed regulations would also take into consideration 
the steps an applicant has taken to improve their language proficiency 
in support of the proposed research project.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would give the Secretary 
discretion to determine the value given each regulatory factor when 
reviewing applicant qualifications. The proposed change would increase 
flexibility to implement the program within each year's Departmental 
priorities for international and foreign language education set under 
Sec.  663.21(d). This change would bring FRA into alignment with other 
Departmental programs (for example, the Department's general selection 
criteria under 34 CFR 75.210) that allow the Secretary to select among 
the regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will 
be emphasized in a particular competition year. This proposed change 
would allow the Secretary to eliminate assign no value to a selection 
criterion for a particular competition year without undergoing 
rulemaking if it was determined that the particular criterion would not 
further program priorities announced under existing Sec.  663.21(d).

DDRA--Section 662.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate 
an application for a fellowship?

    Statute: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6) authorizes the President to provide 
for the promotion of modern foreign language training in U.S. schools, 
colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign 
countries by teachers and prospective teachers to improve their 
language skills and their knowledge of the culture of the people of 
those countries.
    Current Regulation: Section 662.21(c)(3) does not award language 
proficiency points for DDRA applicants conducting research in English 
or in the applicant's native language. Section 662.21(c) does not 
currently provide for consideration of the steps an applicant has taken 
to improve their language proficiency in support of the proposed 
research project.
    Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend Sec.  662.21(c)(3) to 
allow awarding full points for this criterion to applicants conducting 
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other 
than English. Additionally, we propose to add as new paragraph (c)(4): 
a selection criterion that would take into consideration the steps an 
applicant has taken to improve language proficiency in support of the 
proposed research project. Finally, we propose revising the 
introductory language of Sec.  662.21(c) to allow consideration of 
``one or more'' of the listed criteria. This proposed revision would 
provide the Secretary discretion when reviewing the qualifications of 
applicants to align regulated selection criteria with Departmental 
priorities for a particular competition year.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would bring DDRA into line with 
other comparable foreign language and international area studies grant 
programs, which generally do not contain an exception or exclusion for 
applicants who pursue a course of study in their native language. 
Additionally, proposed changes to the regulation are designed to 
improve equitable access for applicants demonstrating doctoral level 
proficiency in the language of the country in which they seek to 
conduct research.
    The Department has determined that the current regulation 
overemphasizes the method of language acquisition over language 
proficiency. The current regulations also have the consequence of 
making individuals whose native language matches the host country of 
research ineligible for language proficiency points under Sec.  
662.21(c)(3) As the ultimate goal of these programs

[[Page 16927]]

is ``promoting modern foreign language training and area training[,]'' 
the Department has determined that the DDRA program is better served by 
selecting linguistically proficient candidates for doctoral level 
research, regardless of their method of acquisition of language 
proficiency.
    The proposed addition to Sec.  662.21(c) of a new selection 
criterion would also take into consideration the steps an applicant has 
taken to improve their language proficiency in support of the proposed 
research project to more fully account for proficiency obtained through 
an applicant's academic efforts and ensure adequate preparation for the 
proposed research project. The Department believes this proposed new 
criterion will support the DDRA program's goal of promoting training 
``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by allowing 
the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their language 
proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
    Finally, the proposal providing the Secretary discretion to choose 
among the regulated selection criteria that will be considered in each 
application cycle when reviewing applicant qualifications is expected 
to increase flexibility when implementing the program to account for 
changing Departmental priorities for international and foreign language 
education. This proposal is generally consistent with the Secretary's 
authority for all direct grant programs under 34 CFR 75.201 where ``in 
the application package or a notice published in the Federal Register, 
the Secretary informs applicants of [. . .] the selection criteria 
chosen[.]'' This change would bring DDRA into alignment with other 
Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to select among the 
regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will be 
used in a particular competition year.

FRA--Section 663.21 What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a fellowship?

    Statute: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6) authorizes the President to provide 
for the promotion of modern foreign language training in U.S. schools, 
colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign 
countries by teachers and prospective teachers to improve their 
language skills and their knowledge of the culture of the people of 
those countries.
    Current Regulation: Section 663.21(c)(3) does not award language 
proficiency points for applicants conducting research in English or in 
the applicant's native language. Section 663.21(c) does not provide for 
consideration of the steps an applicant has taken to improve their 
language proficiency in support of the proposed research project.
    Proposed Regulation: We propose to amend Sec.  663.21(c)(3) to 
allow awarding full points for this criterion to applicants conducting 
research projects in any language in which they have proficiency, other 
than English. We also propose to add to Sec.  663.21(c) a new selection 
criterion that would take into consideration the steps an applicant 
takes to develop improved language proficiency in support of the 
proposed research project. Finally, we propose revising the 
introductory language of Sec.  663.21(c) to allow consideration of 
``one or more'' of the listed criteria, thereby giving the Secretary 
discretion to determine what factors will be considered in reviewing 
the qualifications of applicants based on that year's priorities.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would bring FRA into line with 
other comparable foreign language and international area studies grant 
programs, which generally do not contain an exception or exclusion for 
native language skills other than English. Additionally, proposed 
changes to Sec.  663.21(c) should better improve equitable access for 
applicants demonstrating advanced level proficiency in the language of 
the country in which they seek to conduct research.
    The Department overemphasizes the method of language acquisition 
over language proficiency. The current regulations also have the 
consequence of making individuals whose native language matches the 
host country of research ineligible for language proficiency points 
under Sec.  663.21. As the ultimate goal of these programs is 
``promoting modern foreign language training and area training[,]'' the 
Department has determined that the FRA program is better served by 
selecting among the most linguistically proficient candidates for 
faculty research, regardless of their method of acquisition of language 
proficiency.
    The proposed addition to Sec.  663.21(c) of a new selection 
criterion would consider the steps taken by the applicant to improve 
proficiency in the language of study and ensure adequate preparation 
for the proposed research project. The Department believes this 
criterion will support the FRA program's goal of promoting training 
``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by allowing 
the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their language 
proficiency in a domestic academic setting.
    Finally, we propose providing the Secretary discretion to choose 
among the regulated selection factors considered when reviewing the 
qualifications of applicants. This proposal is expected to increase 
flexibility in implementing the program within the parameters of 
Departmental program priorities for international and foreign language 
education set under Sec.  663.21(d). This proposal is generally 
consistent with the Secretary's authority for all direct grant programs 
under 34 CFR 75.201 where ``in the application package or a notice 
published in the Federal Register, the Secretary informs applicants of 
[. . .] the selection criteria chosen[.]'' This change would bring FRA 
into alignment with other Departmental programs that allow the 
Secretary to select among the regulated selection criteria when 
determining which criteria will be used in a particular competition 
year.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a 
rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule),
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency,
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof, or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive Order.
    This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

[[Page 16928]]

    We have also reviewed the proposed regulations under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing the proposed regulations only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify any associated costs. Based 
on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that the proposed 
regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated 
with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory 
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for 
administering the Department's programs and activities.

Discussion of Costs and Benefits

    The potential costs to applicants, grant recipients, and the 
Department associated with the proposed regulatory change would be 
minimal, while there would be greater potential benefits to applicants, 
grant recipients, and the Department.
    We anticipate a minimal increase of 10-15 DDRA and FRA program 
applications as a result of eliminating the native language proficiency 
exclusion and foresee minimal impact to the Department's time and cost 
for reviewing these additional applications.
    Over the last five years, the amount of funding for the DDRA 
program has ranged from approximately $3.5 to 5 million, with an 
average of 200 grant applications received per year, and an average of 
fifty percent of applications ultimately receiving grant awards. The 
number of applications and awards has remained relatively steady across 
the last five years. The Department expects an increase of 10-15 
applications per year based on the number of applicants that have 
applied to study a geographic area that shares their native language 
skills in recent years.
    An increase in the number of applicants or awards granted could 
result in minimal additional costs to Department in securing readers to 
review applications. The Department pays readers $1,200 to review 
applications and the number of applications per reader ranges from 15 
to a maximum of 22 applications. An increase in 10-15 applications 
could increase cost by an additional $1,200 to secure an additional 
reader. However, the number of applications for the DDRA program has 
declined over the last several years from a height of almost 250 to a 
low of just over 150 in 2022. As a result, an increase in immediate 
applications would not result in any overall comparative additional 
costs, as a nominal increase in applications would restore DDRA to the 
average amount of applications received in prior years. We anticipate 
no additional costs to grant recipients, as we would continue to pay 
for grant activities with program funds.
    Last fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Department conducted an FRA 
competition and made fellowship awards to 22 recipients totaling 
$1,265,000. The FY 2022 competition was the first competition in over a 
decade for the FRA program. The previous Fulbright-Hays appropriation 
had decreased from $15.6 million in FY 2010 to $7.5 million in FY 2011, 
and the nearly fifty percent decrease in available funds made it 
impossible to conduct competitions and make awards under all four 
Fulbright-Hays programs. As a result, the FRA program was suspended 
from 2011 to 2021. The funding level for the Fulbright-Hays programs 
had remained relatively level at $7.1 million for the past several 
years. In FY 2022, we received a modest increase to $8.1 million, which 
enabled us to re-activate the FRA program. However, we will not conduct 
the FRA competition in FY 2023. We do anticipate conducting another FRA 
competition in FY 2024, contingent upon available funds. Given that the 
FRA competition has only been conducted once in the last decade, trends 
in those program applications cannot be measured.
    The benefits of amending these regulations include (1) better 
aligning DDRA and FRA applicant qualifications with other comparable 
foreign language and international area student grant programs to focus 
on language proficiency and (2) increasing equitable access to research 
abroad for those demonstrating language proficiency in the language of 
the countries in which their doctoral-level or faculty research study 
will occur, regardless of the applicant's native language. In addition, 
we expect that this flexibility may result in more applications from 
applicants speaking a wider variety of native language, as well as more 
applications recommended for funding.
    The proposed regulations also would more fully account for 
proficiency by adding a new selection criterion that considers an 
applicant's academic record and the steps taken by the applicant to 
improve proficiency in the language of study and ensure adequate 
preparation for the proposed research project. The Department believes 
this criterion will support the DDRA and FRA programmatic goal of 
promoting training ``in United States schools, colleges, and 
universities'' by allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken 
to improve their language proficiency in an academic setting. We do not 
anticipate any changes in the number of applications received as a 
result of this change, nor do we anticipate any costs to grant 
recipients. As a result, we do not anticipate any burden cost with the 
addition of this particular criterion.
    Finally, providing the Secretary discretion to determine the 
factors that will be considered when reviewing the qualifications of 
applicants would increase flexibility to implement the

[[Page 16929]]

program within statutory requirements while adapting to changing 
Departmental priorities for international and foreign language 
education. This change would bring DDRA and FRA into alignment with 
other Departmental programs that allow the Secretary to select among 
the regulated selection criteria when determining which criteria will 
be emphasized in a particular competition year. We do not anticipate 
any cost to the government for this change, beyond nominal costs 
associated with updating the application package. We do not anticipate 
any changes in the number of applications received as a result of this 
change, nor do we anticipate any costs to grant recipients. As a 
result, we do not anticipate any burden cost with the addition of this 
flexibility regarding the selection criteria.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Alternatives Considered

    In addition to allowing native speakers to receive points based on 
sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3), we considered allowing English 
as the language for the country of research, which is currently 
restricted, but believe that maintaining the requirement that 
applicants as part of the application package demonstrate proficiency 
in a language ``other than English'' more appropriately meets the 
statutory goal of ``promoting modern foreign language training and area 
studies in United States schools[.]'' 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6). We also 
considered continuing to solely provide points for language proficiency 
without consideration of additional steps taken to improve proficiency. 
However, the inclusion of a criterion that considers steps taken to 
improve proficiency better meets the statutory goal of promoting 
training ``in United States schools, colleges, and universities'' by 
allowing the applicant to demonstrate the steps taken to improve their 
language proficiency in a domestic academic setting. We believe that 
replacing the exclusion for native language skills other than English 
with a focus on both an applicant's current foreign language skills and 
efforts to master the language of study will be more effective in 
increasing the capabilities and diversity of applicants and 
participants, while remaining consistent with the statutory goals of 
these programs.

Clarity of the Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments 
on how to make the proposed regulation easier to understand, including 
answers to questions such as the following:
    (a) Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly stated?
    (b) Does the proposed regulation contain technical terms or other 
wording that interferes with its clarity?
    (c) Does the format of the proposed regulation (use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (d) Would the proposed regulation be easier to understand if we 
divided it into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is preceded 
by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec.  
106.9 Dissemination of policy.)
    (e) Could the description of the proposed regulation in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulation easier to understand? If so, how?
    (f) What else could we do to make the proposed regulation easier to 
understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that the proposed regulations would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The small entities that would be affected by the proposed 
regulations are institutions of higher education (IHEs) that would 
submit applications to the Department under this program. The proposed 
regulations would not have a significant economic impact on the small 
entities affected because they would not impose excessive regulatory 
burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The proposed 
regulations would impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper 
expenditure of program funds. We invite the public to comment on our 
certification that these regulations would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small 
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing 
status, governing body, and population. Most entities to which the 
Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply are 
postsecondary institutions; however, many of these institutions do not 
report such data to the Department. As a result, the Department defines 
``small entities'' by reference to enrollment,\1\ to allow meaningful 
comparison of regulatory impact across all types of higher education 
institutions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two-year postsecondary educational institutions with 
enrollment of less than 500 full-time equivalent (FTE) and four-year 
postsecondary educational institutions with enrollment of less than 
1,000 FTE.
    \2\ In some prior regulations, the Department categorized small 
businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined ``non-
profit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were 
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of 
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions 
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. 
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private 
nonprofit organization as small and no public institutions as small. 
Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were 
considered small if they were independently owned and operated and 
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue 
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System (IPEDS) finance data for proprietary institutions, 50 
percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less proprietary 
institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an enrollment-
based definition applies the same metric to all types of 
institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.

[[Page 16930]]



                          Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Level                            Type                 Small           Total          Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................  Public..................             328            1182           27.75
2-year................................  Private.................             182             199           91.46
2-year................................  Proprietary.............            1777            1952           91.03
4-year................................  Public..................              56             747            7.50
4-year................................  Private.................             789            1602           49.25
4-year................................  Proprietary.............             249             331           75.23
    Total.............................  ........................            3381            6013           56.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018-19 data reported to the Department.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    Sections 662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3) of the proposed regulations 
contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA the 
Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for its 
review.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    In the final regulations, we will display the control number 
assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in 
this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.
    The information collection that would be impacted by these proposed 
regulatory changes is the Application for the DDRA and FRA Programs 
(1840-0005). Under the DDRA and FRA programs, individual scholars apply 
through eligible institutions for an institutional grant to support the 
research fellowship. These institutions administer the program, in 
cooperation with the Department, pursuant to sections 102(b)(6) and 
104(e)(1) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 
34 CFR parts 662 and 663, the Policy Statements of the J. William 
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), and the Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
    The data requested are used by the Department, U.S. foreign 
language and area studies specialists, the Department of State, U.S. 
Embassies, Fulbright Commissions, host country officials and scholars, 
and the FSB in determining the academic qualifications and suitability 
of the individual applicant, potential political sensitivity and 
feasibility of the project in the host country, research climate, and 
adequacy of the proposed budget.
    Grants under these programs are awarded annually.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Estimated     Total annual
                                     Number of    Average burden   Total burden     respondent     costs (hourly
             Program                respondents      hours per         hours      average hourly   wage x total
                                                     response                          wage        burden hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDRA Student Respondent.........             325              25           8,125              $0              $0
DDRA Institution Project                      50              25           1,250           47.20          59,000
 Director.......................
FRA Faculty Respondent..........              70              25           1,750           36.33          63,578
FRA Institution Project Director              50              15             750           47.20          35,400
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized Totals...........             495  ..............          11,875  ..............         157,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hour burden of individual respondents is estimated at an 
average of 25 hours for each student. The cost burden for student 
applicants is zero. We estimate that the changes to the regulations may 
result in a small increase in the number of DDRA student respondents 
from 310 to 325. When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an 
increase in DDRA student burden hours from 7750 to 8125.
    The hour burden of the 50 institutional project directors is 
estimated at 25 hours for each DDRA application. The cost burden for 
institutional DDRA applicants is $59,000. These estimates are based on 
feedback from DDRA respondents during the last three years.
    The hour burden of individual respondents is estimated at an 
average of 25 hours for each faculty member. The cost burden for 
faculty applicants is $63,578. The hour burden of the 50 institutional 
project directors is estimated at 15 hours for each FRA application. 
The cost burden for institutional FRA applicants is $35,000. These 
estimates are based on feedback from FRA respondents during the last 
three years.
    These estimates incorporate the completion of the following tasks:

1. Register in the G5 e-Application system (project director)
2. Complete official forms (student/faculty and project director)
3. Develop the application narrative and budget (student/faculty)
4. Screen individual completed applications (project director)
5. Transmit completed individual applications to US/ED in a single 
submission via G5 (project director)


[[Page 16931]]


    The difference between the hour burdens for the DDRA and FRA 
project directors is due to the fact that the FRA program is smaller 
and has fewer applicants. DDRA project directors are generally 
processing applications for multiple students, whereas FRA project 
directors are generally processing an application for one faculty 
member.
    The data in the table is an estimate of the time it takes for both 
institutional project directors and individual student and faculty 
respondents to complete these tasks.
    The DDRA and FRA application (1840-0005) would be affected by the 
regulatory changes in the following ways:
     We would change the application package to eliminate the 
native language proficiency exclusion.
     We would include additional language in the DDRA and FRA 
selection criteria (under Sec. Sec.  662.21(c)(3) and 663.21(c)(3)) 
which would require minimal changes on the technical review forms.
    We estimate that the changes to the regulations may result in a 
small increase in the number of DDRA student respondents from 310 to 
325. When multiplied by 25 hours, this results in an increase in DDRA 
student burden hours from 7750 to 8125. We estimate that costs would 
increase for individuals or institutions as a result of these minor 
changes. The annual burden hours for institutions remains at 2000, and 
the annual burden hours for individuals increases to 9875, for a total 
of 11875 annual burden hours under OMB Control Number 1840-0005. The 
annual cost burden remains at $157,978.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Regulatory section                  Information collection         OMB Control No. and estimated burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Sec.   662.21(c)(3) and 34    These proposed regulatory provisions   1840-0005. The number of respondents
 CFR Sec.   663.21(c)(3).             would require changing the             and the number of annual burden
                                      application package to eliminate the   hours would increase to 495 and
                                      native language proficiency            11,875 respectively, and the annual
                                      exclusion.                             burden costs would remain the same
                                                                             at $157,978.
34 CFR Sec.   662.21(c)(3) and 34    These proposed regulatory provisions   1840-0005. The number of respondents
 CFR Sec.   663.21(c)(3).             would require the inclusion of         and the number of annual burden
                                      additional language in the DDRA and    hours would increase to 495 and
                                      FRA selection criteria to take into    11,875 respectively, and the annual
                                      consideration steps an applicant has   burden costs would remain the same
                                      taken to improve their language        at $157,978.
                                      proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have prepared Information Collection Requests for these 
information collection requirements. If you wish to review and comment 
on the Information Collection Requests, please follow the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section of this notification. Note: The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the Department review all 
comments posted at www.regulations.gov.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
    [cir] Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the 
proper performance of our functions, including whether the information 
will have practical use;
    [cir] Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
    [cir] Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
    [cir] Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, 
it is important that OMB receives your comments by April 20, 2023. This 
does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed 
regulations. If your comments relate to the Information Collection 
Requests for these proposed regulations, please specify the Docket ID 
number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on the top of 
your comments.

Intergovernmental Review

    The proposed regulations are not subject to Executive Order 12372 
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions 
Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests 
comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission 
of information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed regulations do not have federalism 
implications.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at 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 662

    Colleges and universities, Education, Educational research, 
Educational study programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and 
fellowships.

34 CFR Part 663

    Colleges and universities, Education, Educational research, 
Educational study

[[Page 16932]]

programs, Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships, 
Teachers.

Nasser H. Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of 
Education proposes to amend parts 662 and 663 of title 34 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

34 CFR PART 662--FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH 
ABROAD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 662 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 
2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  662.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  662.21  What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a fellowship?

* * * * *
    (c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In 
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of 
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
    (3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages 
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record 
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language 
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to 
the proposed research project;
    (5) The applicant's ability to conduct research in a foreign 
cultural context, as evidenced by the applicant's references or 
previous overseas experience, or both.
* * * * *

34 CFR PART 663--FULBRIGHT-HAYS FACULTY RESEARCH ABROAD FELLOWSHIP 
PROGRAM

0
3. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 
2452(b)(6), unless otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  663.21 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  663.21  What criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a fellowship?

* * * * *
    (c) Qualifications of the applicant. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the qualifications of the applicant. In 
coordination with any priorities established under paragraph (d) of 
this section, the Secretary considers one or more of the following--
* * * * *
    (3) The applicant's proficiency in one or more of the languages 
(other than English) of the host country or countries of research;
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's academic record 
demonstrates steps taken to further improve advanced language 
proficiency to overcome any anticipated language barriers relative to 
the proposed research project;
    (5) The applicant's ability to conduct research in a foreign 
cultural context, as evidenced by the applicant's previous overseas 
experience, or documentation provided by the sponsoring institution, or 
both.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-05725 Filed 3-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P