National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program, 68738-68768 [2024-18856]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68738-68768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18856]



[[Page 68737]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 166

August 27, 2024

Part III





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Parts 655, 656, and 657





National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies 
Fellowships Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 68738]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 655, 656, and 657

RIN 1840-AD94
[Docket ID ED-2024-OPE-0017]


National Resource Centers Program and Foreign Language and Area 
Studies Fellowships Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department) amends the 
regulations that govern the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program, 
Assistance Listing Number 84.015A, and the Foreign Language and Area 
Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.015B. 
These regulations clarify interpretations of statutory language, 
redesign the selection criteria, and make necessary updates based upon 
program management experience. These regulations remove ambiguity and 
redundancy in the selection criteria and definitions of key terms, 
improve the application process, and align the administration of these 
programs with developments in modern foreign language and area studies 
education.

DATES: This rule is effective September 26, 2024 except for the 
regulations amending parts 656 (instruction 8) and 657 (instruction 9), 
which are effective on August 15, 2025.
    Applicability date: Parts 656 and 657 apply to all applications 
submitted and all new awards made under these parts for the NRC Program 
and FLAS Fellowships Program after August 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cwiek, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-1947. Email: [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: 
    Purpose of this Regulatory Action: The regulations for the NRC 
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program were last amended in 2009 (74 FR 
35070) and were impacted by subsequent technical corrections made to 34 
CFR part 655, International Education Programs--General Provisions, 
adopted in 2014 (79 FR 75867). Because these regulations provide the 
foundation for the administration of these programs, we have reviewed 
them, evaluated them for provisions that, over time, have become 
outdated, unnecessary, or inconsistent with other Department 
regulations as well as with established practices for administering 
these programs in the Department, and identified ways in which they can 
be updated, streamlined, and otherwise improved. Specifically, we amend 
parts 655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) detailing proposed 
changes earlier this year (89 FR 13516).
    These final regulations incorporate several significant related 
changes to the proposed regulations contained in the NPRM. We also made 
several minor technical and editorial changes in these final 
regulations. We describe these changes in more detail in the Analysis 
of Comments and Changes section below. Below is a brief overview of 
significant related changes to these final regulations compared to the 
NPRM.
    Program purposes. We added a new section in part 655 that describes 
the purposes of the International Education Programs, including the NRC 
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program, authorized by title VI of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The final regulations 
for the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program now refer to these 
broader purposes of the International Education Programs.
    Undergraduate centers. We added a cost limitation for undergraduate 
NRCs that requires projects and project activities to predominantly 
benefit undergraduate teaching and learning. Other changes more closely 
align selection criteria with the expectation that undergraduate NRCs 
make a distinctive contribution by preparing undergraduate students to 
matriculate into advanced language and area studies programs and 
professional language school programs.
    Fellowship payments. We maintained the current structure of 
fellowship payments for the FLAS Fellowships Program, meaning that 
fellowships will continue to consist of an institutional payment and a 
stipend payment in addition to any permitted allowances.
    Educational programs. We substantially revised the educational 
program eligibility criterion for the FLAS Fellowships Program. The 
educational program eligibility requirement will not apply to summer 
fellowships. In addition, these final regulations allow students in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and 
professional fields to satisfy this eligibility requirement during the 
academic year through a combination of academic advising and 
coursework, even if their educational programs do not ordinarily 
include or require modern foreign language study or area studies 
coursework.
    Institutional responsibilities. We added a new section in part 657 
that describes the responsibilities of institutions that receive an 
allocation of fellowships under the FLAS Fellowships Program. This 
section enumerates existing responsibilities of institutions receiving 
funding under that part without adding additional obligations.
    Employment practices. We eliminated consideration of employment 
practices from the selection criteria for the NRC Program.
    Required assurances. We added a new assurance for both the NRC 
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program addressing employment practices 
and institutional travel policies. These assurances are a required 
component of applications to these programs.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPRM, the 
Department received 113 comments on the proposed regulations. We 
address those comments in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 
below.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    An analysis of the public comments received and the changes to the 
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows. We group issues 
according to subject. We discuss other substantive issues under the 
sections of the regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not 
address minor, non-substantive changes (such as renumbering paragraphs, 
adding a word, or typographical errors). Additionally, we do not 
address recommended changes that the statute does not authorize the 
Secretary to make or comments pertaining to operational processes. We 
generally do not address comments pertaining to issues that were not 
within the scope of the NPRM.

Purposes of the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter noted the proposed regulations adequately 
address the mission of the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program 
through the addition of new definitions. However, the commenter 
suggested addressing the mission or purpose at greater length in 
Sec. Sec.  656.1 and 657.1, noting that such an addition would help 
applicants and evaluators understand the fundamental purpose of the

[[Page 68739]]

programs, leading to better applications and evaluations.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the programs serve the 
security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States. 
Indeed, Congress made a finding that, ``The security, stability, and 
economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend 
upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world 
regions, foreign languages, and international affairs, as well as upon 
a strong research base in these areas.'' \1\ We agree the regulations 
should provide greater clarity on how the purposes of the various 
programs authorized under title VI of the HEA apply to the NRC Program 
and the FLAS Fellowships Program. The final regulations address this 
matter by adding a new Sec.  655.5 that incorporates the statutory 
purposes of the International Education Programs; specifies how the 
purposes apply to these programs, including the NRC Program and the 
FLAS Fellowships Program; and summarizes the Department's obligation to 
coordinate these Federal programs. We have provided further 
clarification of the statutory program purposes that apply to the NRC 
Program and the FLAS Fellowships program in Sec. Sec.  656.1 and 657.1, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We added Sec.  655.5, which addresses the purposes of the 
programs authorized by part A of title VI of the HEA. We also added new 
Sec. Sec.  656.1(b) and 657.1(b) that refer to the new Sec.  655.5.

Geographic Area of Focus Requirement for the NRC Program and the FLAS 
Fellowships Program

    Comments: Ten commenters expressed disagreement with the proposed 
requirement of a geographic focus for NRC and FLAS grants. The 
commenters concluded that, by eliminating an international category 
that does not take into account a geographic area of focus for the NRC 
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program, the programs would lose the 
distinctive perspective provided by an exclusively international focus 
and adversely affect international studies programs, which benefit from 
funding under these programs. One commenter specifically described 
international NRCs as especially nimble in their ability to respond to 
emerging crises and community needs. Furthermore, commenters explained 
how current global and international studies NRCs work collaboratively 
to support education on important global issues. One commenter argued 
that the proposal to eliminate an international focus runs counter to 
the program's intent by forcing a focus on individual regions in 
isolation, rather than encouraging the development of cross-regional 
and cross-national comprehensive and comparative expertise. Another 
commenter said that this change would significantly reduce 
collaboration among, and the leveraged funding of activities by, NRCs 
at the same institution, other institutions, and across national 
networks of area studies centers. According to this commenter, 
international centers do not excel in specific, clearly defined 
geographic areas, because they are global in scope. It would be much 
more difficult for them to compete for grants in a world region 
category with other area studies centers. One commenter contended that 
requiring geographic focus would essentially end international studies, 
including critical research on cybersecurity, public health, 
immigration, and climate change from an international perspective. One 
commenter noted that any effort to increase capacity is impractical 
because NRCs do not directly control various decisions related to 
resources on campuses. Five commenters supported the geographic focus 
requirement. One lauded the change because it may help to ensure that 
all centers are planning cohesive and well thought out programs that 
tie global issues to the region of focus, while another agreed with the 
importance of grounding thematic or ``international'' centers 
geographically and linguistically, while allowing for spatial 
configurations that reflect dynamic global flows of people, goods, and 
ideas.
    Discussion: For the reasons we stated in the NPRM, we believe that 
a geographic focus requirement is supported under the statute and will 
help ensure that we can distribute funds in a manner consistent with 
the consultation on areas of national need, which necessarily generates 
recommendations related to specific language and geographically defined 
world areas rather than themes or topics in international studies.
    We are committed to administering a program with sufficient 
flexibility such that we can select grantees and allocate funds in a 
manner that most effectively implements the purposes of these programs. 
Although a commenter noted that NRCs without a defined area of 
geographic focus are particularly nimble in responses to emerging 
crises and community needs, this characteristic is not unique to one 
category of NRCs. One way to interpret this responsiveness is the 
ability to provide unanticipated programming and to shift grant funds 
to new project activities with relative ease as conditions in the world 
change. NRCs with a geographic focus would have such flexibility under 
the standard procedures for the revision of budget and program plans in 
2 CFR 200.308. For example, if an armed conflict arises, if the 
conflict is relevant to a Center, it may request approval from the 
Department to reallocate funds to support related activities. We work 
with all grantees to maximize the extent to which areas of national 
need are met, but these needs tend to be articulated in terms of 
specific languages and geographic world areas, which supports a 
geographic focus requirement. We remain committed to an efficient and 
effective distribution of funds across and within these programs.
    We do not agree that this requirement will mean the loss of 
international perspective. Area studies, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 
1132(a), is a broad concept based on the comprehensive study of 
specific societies that does not exclude any discipline or approach. 
The inclusion of ``societies'' in this definition complements the 
program's interest in modern foreign languages and specific places, as 
articulated in 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). International studies' 
approaches complement the specificity of area studies by drawing 
attention to patterns, trends, and phenomena relevant to understanding 
the larger context in which societies exist. Our view of the 
relationship between area studies and international studies aligns with 
the larger program goals of 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(B), as described in 
the NPRM. That is, even with a geographical focus, Centers must still 
engage in all the specified activities to meet the program's purpose, 
including support for international studies. Centering a geographic 
world area also will help Centers align their activities to the 
recommendations provided by the ``consultation on areas of national 
need'' for expertise in foreign languages and world regions required by 
20 U.S.C. 1121(c)(1).
    Under the final regulations, Centers will retain the flexibility to 
define their geographic area of focus, which may be a traditionally 
recognized world region, a single country, or another configuration of 
space that draws attention to world issues, peoples, and any related 
languages outside the United States. This approach is not incompatible 
with alternative approaches to defining a world area through linguistic 
or cultural frameworks. Some of the programs' current categories 
reflect, in part,

[[Page 68740]]

linguistic and cultural affinities that have been spatialized to the 
point of being normalized as a world area. Such categories are not 
timeless and are subject to modification as scholarly, political, 
administrative, and other understandings change, particularly through 
attention to minoritized groups that tend to straddle boundaries 
between these areas. Likewise, nothing in the regulations precludes the 
creation of alternative configurations of space that overlap, replace, 
or fundamentally change other categories defined in geographic terms. 
For example, Lusophone communities in Africa, Sufi communities in 
Southeast Asia, and Japanese diaspora communities in South America are 
possible geographic areas of focus that are neither so general as to 
define the entire world as a region, nor so conventional that they 
refer to a single traditional world area. Applications that propose a 
geographic area of focus that spans more than one world area meet the 
geographic focus requirement. However, we may need to use certain world 
area categories for administrative purposes, such as the implementation 
of program priorities or grants administration. Consequently, 
applicants to these programs may need to use these categories as a 
shorthand for describing their geographic area of focus, including foci 
that span multiple world area categories. The selection criteria are 
sufficiently flexible that applicants will have the opportunity to 
explain the rationale for the chosen focus or foci and describe the 
alignment of that focus or those foci with resources and proposed 
activities.
    We do not believe that this requirement will imperil international 
studies programs. These grants are intended to stimulate specific types 
of activity. Under the statute, all Centers must perform four 
functions: modern language instruction, area studies, international 
studies, and research and teaching on global issues. Highlighting these 
expectations strengthens the program's overall emphasis on 
international studies and global issues. These functions also reinforce 
how the existence and accessibility of high-quality instruction in Less 
Commonly Taught Languages at all levels is vital to area studies and 
modern foreign language education in the United States. Teaching and 
learning the world's languages are foundational elements of the NRC and 
FLAS Fellowships Programs. These programs continue to address the 
national need for expertise in these languages originally identified in 
title VI of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that created 
these programs. Sustaining and expanding high-quality instruction in a 
wide variety of these languages at institutions of higher education 
(IHEs) in the United States contributes to national security and 
economic prosperity. The commitment to area studies in these programs 
ensures that the cultivation of expertise in local, regional, 
international, and global contexts accompanies and reinforces the 
growth of proficiency in at least one world language. Critically, these 
programs also support the development of proficiency in multiple world 
languages, including the Less Commonly Taught Languages that are rarely 
or never routinely taught at IHEs in the United States, to support 
nuanced understanding of complex global issues in the past, present, 
and future. Many of the Less Commonly Taught Languages are underserved 
by emerging translation technologies because these technologies rely on 
a large and accessible corpus of training materials. Human expertise in 
languages and the local context in which these languages are used are a 
critical resource.
    The inherent flexibility of grants under these programs, even with 
the new requirements, will allow funded grant projects to continue to 
support efforts to integrate area studies with international, global, 
or macro-level perspectives. As commenters suggested, current Centers 
with an international thematic focus with without a geographical focus 
may struggle to implement project activities that increase capacity 
precisely because they are unable to coordinate all relevant resources 
at an IHE. Commenters did not suggest that Centers with a geographic 
focus face the same type of challenge, despite facing the same 
expectation to balance area studies and international studies 
approaches. We believe the geographic focus requirement will help 
ensure the effective stewardship of Federal funds by improving the 
alignment of project activities with the program purposes. Furthermore, 
nothing precludes an applicant with a general global or international 
focus from applying for a grant that proposes to support a more 
narrowly defined project with a geographical area of focus. Such 
applicants might be well-positioned to propose projects informed by 
global or international approaches that avoid any perceived pitfalls 
associated with a geographic focus.
    These grants are intended to stimulate specific types of activity 
in furtherance of the program's purposes. Some administrative units may 
rely on grants for their existence. Many do not. The same can be said 
for curricula and the resources that support them more broadly at 
institutions. While these grants may enable certain project activities, 
many grantee institutions have made substantial investments in these 
fields that are much larger than would be possible by grants under 
these programs alone. We interpret this as a sign of success. Under 
these final regulations, institutions may continue to sustain and 
support these initiatives. However, to meet the statutory requirement 
that all Centers support area and international studies, institutions 
may need to rethink their approach to international studies to promote 
such a synthesis. Commenters have pointed out that many global and 
international Centers cooperate with area studies Centers and that 
other centers already draw upon area studies expertise at their 
institutions. Similarly, many of the academic programs, such as 
undergraduate international studies programs, combine language and area 
studies along with more thematic global and international elements. 
These types of practices and educational programs demonstrate the 
complementarity of area studies and international studies.
    Finally, commenters described how Centers without a geographic area 
of focus frequently serve a coordination function that links multiple 
Centers or connects external parties to specialized resources, such as 
Centers with a geographic focus. We appreciate learning about the 
multitude of institutional arrangements that exist among current 
grantees, but we conclude these arrangements are products of specific 
institutional factors and local circumstances rather than an intended 
outcome of the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program. Grantees 
have the flexibility to adopt institutional reforms and practices that 
most effectively support implementation of project activities for these 
programs, provided they conform with all obligations associated with an 
award. We encourage collaboration among grantees and fully expect that 
the network of grantees will continue to support educators throughout 
the United States.
    Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec.  656.3(a)(1) and 657.3(a)(1) to 
expressly allow for a geographical focus that spans multiple world 
areas. We have also revised the NRC selection process in Sec.  
656.20(c) and the FLAS selection process in Sec.  657.20(c) to clarify 
that applications are ranked within each group of applications that 
shares the same or similar area of focus.

[[Page 68741]]

Grouping of World Areas at Area Studies Centers

    Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to require that 
IHEs separate Middle East studies and South Asian studies in any Center 
that combines them.
    Discussion: We do not define specific world regions or determine 
their appropriateness in the proposed or final regulations. Centers are 
administrative units within IHEs, so IHEs determine the purpose and 
structure of those administrative units.
    Changes: None.

Emphasis on Less Commonly Taught Languages for the NRC Program and the 
FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter supported the emphasis on Less Commonly 
Taught Languages in the regulations.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support.
    Changes: None.

Funding for Title VI Programs, Including the NRC and FLAS Fellowships 
Programs

    Comments: Several commenters expressed generalized concern that the 
purpose of the proposed regulations could be interpreted as a 
recommendation to reduce the level of funding for programs authorized 
under title VI of the HEA, especially the NRC and FLAS Fellowships 
Programs. These commenters noted these programs support vital 
educational activities.
    Discussion: Funding levels for programs authorized under title VI 
of the HEA, including the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs, are not 
determined by program regulations. We agree these programs contribute 
to national security and prosperity, among other possible 
contributions.
    Changes: None.

Definitions of Areas of National Need and Diverse Perspectives for 
Title VI Programs

    Comments: Four commenters lauded the proposed definitions of 
``diverse perspectives'' and ``areas of national need.'' One commenter 
did not believe the definitions would be effective, claiming that the 
instruction at NRCs is biased and that the area studies scholarly 
community is not equipped to ensure diverse perspectives.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters who found the definitions 
helpful. Diverse perspectives help build a robust evidentiary base that 
supports a comprehensive understanding of issues derived from a 
multiplicity of relevant perspectives, research methodologies, and 
lively scholarly debate.
    Changes: None.

Conducting the Consultation on Areas of National Need for Title VI 
Programs

    Comments: One commenter stated the proposed regulations did not 
identify how the Secretary will engage in the required consultation on 
areas of national need, how the Secretary will determine areas of 
national need, how the Secretary will include consultation results in 
the request for applications, or how the Secretary will make available 
to applicants a list of areas identified as areas of national need. The 
commenter also stated that the regulations should prioritize the 
results more strongly in grant competitions in order to persuade more 
applicants to attempt to serve the identified national needs. One 
commenter expressed concern about the possible application of world 
area priorities derived from the consultation on national need during 
the selection process.
    Discussion: We do not believe that it is necessary to describe the 
consultation process in greater detail than the description in the 
statute. We have conducted these consultations in the past and the 
results of these consultations since 2012 are available on the 
Department's website.\2\ The definitions of ``areas of national need'' 
and ``consultation on areas of national need'' in these regulations 
provide sufficient clarity for the purpose of conducting the 
consultation and aligning the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program 
with the competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/languageneeds.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The consultation informs the priorities we include in the 
competition priorities and the notice inviting applications. After 
using the consultation to develop priorities for these purposes, we do 
not return to the consultation, but the results of the consultation 
remain available for applicants to review. We consider how applications 
address those priorities and the other selection criteria during the 
selection process. That is, we read the applications against those 
priorities and related selection criteria, and not directly against the 
consultation. Applicants may reference the results of the consultation 
when responding to the selection criteria at Sec. Sec.  656.21(c)(4), 
656.21(d)(2), 656.22(c)(4), 656.21(d)(2), 656.23(a)(3), 657.21(d)(2), 
and 657.21(d)(3) in the context of addressing ``areas of national 
need,'' which may encompass a broader range of needs in the government, 
education, business, and nonprofit sectors for expertise in foreign 
language, area, and international studies identified by the Secretary.
    Sections 656.24(a)(4) and 657.22(a)(9) provide us with sufficient 
authority to select competition priorities based on the consultation 
process and consider these priorities during the selection processes 
for grants under the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program according 
to the procedures described at Sec. Sec.  656.20(e) and 657.20(e). We 
cannot speculate about world area priorities derived from consultations 
on national need that have not occurred. However, consideration of 
these priorities in the limited manner described in the regulations 
will contribute to the alignment of the program with national needs for 
expertise in area studies and modern foreign languages.
    Changes: None.

Diversity Statements and Diverse Perspectives for Title VI Programs

    Comments: One commenter encouraged the Department to require 
Centers receiving title VI funding to disallow sending in diversity 
statements during the hiring process at IHEs. The commenter went on to 
say that if the Department is interested in encouraging diverse 
perspectives, it should employ peer reviewers who hold diverse views.
    Discussion: The suggestion to regulate general hiring practices at 
IHEs is beyond the scope of these regulations and would exceed the 
statutory authority for these specific discretionary grant programs. 
The Department always strives to employ expert reviewers during a 
competition who represent a wide range of relevant expertise.
    Changes: None.

Timing and Composition of Applications for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships 
Programs

    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
changes are likely to increase the overall burden of submitting 
applications to the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program because 
the proposed regulations would eliminate the ability to submit a single 
application to both programs. One commenter encouraged the Department 
to align the applications for these programs to the greatest extent 
possible. One commenter was uncertain about the degree to which the 
proposed selection criteria for these programs differed. One commenter 
noted the proposed selection criteria for these programs were largely 
similar and responding to them in an application narrative would 
require similar or

[[Page 68742]]

overlapping data. Several commenters believed the proposed changes 
would result in a change in frequency or timing of the application 
cycles for these programs. One commenter suggested revisions to the 
burden hour calculations for these applications.
    Discussion: We do not believe that the changes to the application 
process will significantly increase the burden associated with the 
submission of applications to both programs. Accordingly, we have not 
changed the burden estimates associated with the applications based on 
this change. However, as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 section below, we have changed the calculation of burden hours 
based on a commenter's assertion that our previous calculations 
severely underestimated the burden hours and costs associated with 
these applications.
    Currently, and following the implementation of these regulations, 
there is and will be some overlap among the selection criteria and the 
data required to respond to them. We have also attempted to align the 
application processes and requirements as much as possible. Because the 
purposes and requirements of the programs are different, however, it is 
to be expected that there are different selection criteria for the 
programs. Although we are making changes to the selection criteria for 
each of the programs, we do not expect the cumulative time required to 
respond to them will change.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the changes to the application submission 
are due to the technical limitations of the systems. These changes do 
not have any bearing on the competition schedule. The requirement to 
submit separate applications for each program also conforms to the 
Department's expectations for grant programs described at 34 CFR 
75.125.
    Changes: None.

Selection Process for Institutional Awards for the NRC Program and the 
FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: Three commenters questioned whether the same expert 
reviewers will evaluate applications for both the NRC and FLAS 
Fellowships Programs submitted separately by the same applicant.
    Discussion: The regulations create the structure for a fair and 
transparent selection process for the NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships 
Program. All grant competitions are conducted according to the 
Department's policies and procedures. Revising the regulations to 
address the identity of expert reviewers for two distinct programs 
would not benefit the efficient administration of these programs, but 
it is our intention that the same reviewers will evaluate applications 
for both of these programs because of the substantial overlap in the 
selection criteria and complementary program purposes.
    Changes: None.

Alignment of Academic Personnel With Proposed Projects for the NRC 
Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: Two commenters requested that we clarify the proposed 
term ``critical mass of scholars'' by describing how critical mass will 
be measured. One commenter questioned whether references to tenure and 
tenure-track faculty in proposed Sec. Sec.  656.21(b)(4), 656.22(b)(4), 
and 657.21(c)(1) disadvantage IHEs without tenure systems. One 
commenter applauded proposed changes that anchor a grantee's mission 
and success to available scholarly expertise.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter who saw a broad effort to 
enhance the alignment between grantee success and academic resources. 
We believe the definition of ``critical mass of scholars'' is 
sufficiently clear without being overly prescriptive. A reliance on a 
single metric, such as a minimum number of scholars, would fail to 
account for the substantial differences in various area studies 
communities and would not be sensitive to changes over time. We believe 
peer reviewers are well positioned to determine what constitutes a 
critical mass of scholars for a particular project. These regulations 
provide a necessary degree of flexibility for applicants and grantees.
    With regard to selection criteria that address the availability of 
tenured or tenure-track faculty, we decided to retain these criteria 
even though these criteria may disadvantage an IHE without a tenure 
system. Both the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs are discretionary 
grant programs that require us to make a determination of excellence 
based on proposed projects and the resources relevant to area studies 
and modern foreign language education. We must be reasonably assured 
that the resources, including faculty and other academic personnel, 
described in an application selected for funding will continue to exist 
during the project period. The practice of tenure is one common 
mechanism in postsecondary education that demonstrates an institution's 
long-term commitment to employment, which contributes to evaluating the 
likely success and sustainability of a proposed project. Yet we also 
provide flexibility with regard to these selection criteria. Peer 
reviewers will determine the extent to which ``enough qualified tenured 
and tenure-track faculty'' are involved in teaching and advising rather 
than simply confirming a minimum required number of such faculty are 
present at the applicant IHE. Applicants may provide contextual 
information to support peer reviewers' determinizations that any amount 
of such faculty, including none, constitutes a sufficient number in the 
context of a proposed project.
    Changes: None.

Stated Performance Goals for Modern Foreign Language Instruction for 
the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter stated both the existing and proposed 
regulations share a common flaw because they do not define performance-
based language instruction.
    Discussion: We decided to adopt the phrase ``stated performance 
goals for functional foreign language use'' rather than ``performance-
based language instruction'' in the proposed and final regulations. The 
precise meaning of the former term is likely to change over time due to 
new research, pedagogical innovations, and standards set by 
professional or governmental organizations. We believe the term is 
sufficiently understood among specialists engaged in the various 
aspects of modern foreign language education without being too limiting 
or rooted in a single pedagogical approach. Although Centers likely do 
not directly control the adoption or development of stated performance 
goals, the use or development of stated performance goals in language 
instruction facilitates the determination of excellence for the NRC 
Program and reflects a statutory requirement for the instruction that 
fellows receive under the FLAS Fellows Program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 20 U.S.C. 1122(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language instruction that adapts general standards including, but 
not limited to, Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Skills 
Descriptions,\4\ ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines,\5\ or the Common 
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages \6\ when setting 
learning objectives, goals, or outcomes for modern foreign language 
courses and programs would satisfy this requirement. Language-specific 
standards, such as those derived from

[[Page 68743]]

the Japanese-Language Proficiency Test (JLPT),\7\ would similarly 
satisfy this requirement. IHEs or academic departments also may develop 
hybrid approaches that combine elements of multiple sources or create 
locally determined standards. Finally, IHEs may satisfy this 
requirement by working to develop a system of stated performance goals, 
even if these goals have not actually been fully developed or adopted 
during the grant's performance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://govtilr.org/.
    \5\ https://www.actfl.org/educator-resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines.
    \6\ https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions.
    \7\ https://www.jlpt.jp/e/about/levelsummary.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not endorse a specific source for stated performance goals 
because we are not directly evaluating the sufficiency or content of a 
particular set of stated performance goals used by an applicant or 
grantee, but we provide these examples for illustrative purposes. A 
more prescriptive approach, especially one highlighting a specific 
pedagogical technique or single set of standards, risks inadvertently 
encouraging future applicants and grantees to implement outmoded 
methods or approaches. The key expectation is that IHEs have adopted or 
are working to adopt goals or standards for the use of modern foreign 
languages that serve as criteria used to structure curricula, design 
the student learning experience, and assess student learning. In 
addition to language instruction, stated performance goals may support 
other processes at grantee IHEs related to educational quality, such as 
program evaluation, continuous improvement, learner placement, transfer 
of student credit, and the selection of appropriate overseas programs. 
Learners may further benefit from being able to communicate their 
approximate level of proficiency more clearly to others, including 
academic programs and potential employers, more meaningfully than would 
be possible through course titles or credit hours alone.
    Changes: None.

Area Studies Library Collections

    Comments: One commenter expressed appreciation that a consideration 
of libraries would be possible under the proposed revisions to part 
655. One commenter expressed opposition to the criteria in proposed 
Sec.  657.21(c)(3) and current Sec.  657.21(e)(1). This commenter 
believed these criteria emphasized collections over the personnel 
needed to acquire and manage collections. Four commenters expressed 
general support for libraries and advocated for more support for 
libraries and area studies collections. One commenter praised the 
proposed changes to the library criteria, indicating that the changes 
would likely result in more collaboration and coordination among 
libraries thereby easing access to area content across libraries. One 
commenter expressed concern that the proposed changes to the library 
criteria de-emphasize HEA, title VI funding to libraries. One commenter 
praised the inclusion of ``library'' in the adequacy of resources 
selection criteria for NRC and FLAS. The same commenter did not see the 
word ``rare'' in the proposed regulation when talking about library 
collections and suggested we add it and suggested including non-
extractive collection practices as a signifier of excellence. One 
commenter noted that applicants and grantees cannot set library 
policies. One commenter supported evaluating libraries on the basis of 
access and not on the basis of financial support in the selection 
criteria for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs.
    Discussion: We acknowledge and appreciate the critical 
contributions that area studies librarians and other information 
specialists make to area studies and modern foreign language education. 
Vital research and innovative forms of educational outreach, including 
knowledge dissemination, would not be possible without their efforts. 
We agree that experts with specialized knowledge are crucial to 
curating, expanding, and providing access to materials that support 
area studies research and teaching throughout the United States. 
Important library collections are a definitional characteristic of 
comprehensive NRCs, and under Sec.  656.21(c)(2), library resources 
will be evaluated by consideration of collections, specifically 
including the extent to which they are unique, rare, or distinctive, 
and policies, as well as human resources. However, to better reflect 
the critical role that librarians and other information specialists 
play, we are revising the selection criterion to clarify that such 
experts do not merely support collections but take an active role in 
administration of these collections, and the full range of expertise 
required for experts in the field. Although we do not include a 
reference to non-extractive collection practices in the final 
regulations, applicants may discuss such approaches if they believe 
they demonstrate current best practices or professional standards 
associated with an important library collection.
    Funding for area studies library collections and staff represents 
an important investment in educational infrastructure that supports 
national security and prosperity. We do not believe these selection 
criteria will discourage title VI project funding for libraries. We 
address libraries in the selection criteria because libraries are an 
important component of area studies educational infrastructure, and 
these selection criteria support the selection of applications for 
funding on the statutorily required basis of excellence. We acknowledge 
that grantees may be unable to set policies for other administrative 
units or program, but the regulations require applicants to address 
multiple indicators of excellence, including access to library 
collections. In this context, access encompasses both access to 
physical materials as well as access to digital resources, including 
rare or distinctive resources. We believe the selection criteria will 
allow for a balanced consideration of available resources, including 
experts, as well as accessibility.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  656.21(c)(2) to refer to collections 
that are ``managed'' by experts ``with appropriate professional 
training.''

Placement of Graduates for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships 
Program

    Comments: One commenter suggested that NRCs should not be measured 
by their placement of graduates in jobs or graduate programs because 
universities do not have the ability to place students in specific jobs 
or programs. The commenter suggested that, while NRCs should prepare 
their graduates to enter into public service, they should not be 
evaluated on this basis.
    Discussion: Under the HEA, the Department must ``consider an 
applicant's record of placing students into postgraduate employment, 
education, or training in areas of national need and an applicant's 
stated efforts to increase the number of such students that go into 
such placements.'' \8\ The selection criteria appropriately implement 
this requirement, which applies to both the NRC Program and the FLAS 
Fellowships Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 20 U.S.C. 1127(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.

Consideration of Barriers to Equitable Access and Employment Practices 
for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter suggested removing proposed Sec.  
656.21(a)(5), relating to non-discriminatory hiring practices, from the 
selection criteria for the NRC Program. The commenter also stated the 
program statute does not include or support any consideration of 
barriers to equitable access in the selection criteria for the FLAS

[[Page 68744]]

Fellowships Program at Sec.  657.21(e)(2). Two commenters noted an 
IHE's hiring practices govern the practices of all administrative 
units, preventing a single administrative unit from developing its own 
policies.
    Discussion: We proposed selection criteria addressing non-
discriminatory hiring practices, in part, to facilitate monitoring for 
compliance with statutory and national policy requirements for Federal 
assistance, as described in 2 CFR 200.300 and 34 CFR 75.700. These 
requirements include, but are not limited to, those that protect free 
speech, religious liberty, public welfare, and the environment, and 
prohibit discrimination. However, we are convinced by commenters that, 
because institutional policies provide the general framework for the 
policies of subsidiary administrative units, the inclusion of selection 
criteria is not the most appropriate means to support grantee 
compliance with these national policy requirements. Further, we 
recognize that the experts who are selected to review NRC Program and 
FLAS Fellowships Program applications are selected because of their 
expertise in area studies and modern foreign languages, especially in a 
postsecondary education context, and not for their expertise in 
national policy requirements for Federal assistance or in policies that 
govern employment opportunities.
    We believe it would be appropriate to require applicants to provide 
an assurance addressing employment practices as well as other topics 
related to institutional policies. We note that 34 CFR 100.4 identifies 
an assurance as an appropriate mechanism to support compliance with the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 among grantees. We also believe an assurance 
related to travel policies will support compliance with 2 CFR 200.475. 
The final regulations incorporate these assurances and remove the 
selection criteria mentioned here.
    With regard to Sec.  657.21(e)(2), section 427 of the General 
Education Provision Act requires the Department's grantees to describe 
the steps the grantee will take to ensure equitable access to, and 
participation in, the federally funded activities. Consequently, 
grantees are required to provide similar information in their 
applications. We included a selection criterion derived from this 
statement for the FLAS Fellowships Program because it is an important 
component of program design that affects program implementation. 
Attention to equitable access and participation may increase the number 
of eligible students who apply for fellowships, which would enhance the 
competitive aspect of the selection process at grantee IHEs. Expert 
reviewers will evaluate this criterion as a component of a 
determination of the excellence of a proposed project. Eliminating this 
selection criterion would adversely affect our ability to select 
applications for funding on the statutorily required basis of 
excellence.
    Changes: We have removed the selection criterion in Sec.  
656.21(a)(5) and added a requirement to Sec. Sec.  656.11 and 657.11 
that applicants submit an assurance of non-discriminatory hiring 
practices at the institution and an assurance that a travel policy 
exists at the institution.

Consideration of Project Goals and Plans for the NRC Program and the 
FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter expressed satisfaction with the changes in 
the context of Sec. Sec.  656.21(d)-(f) and 656.22(d)-(f). Another 
commenter expressed the need for further clarification about what 
changed in this selection criterion and asked that we provide 
additional guidance on defining goals and plans for projects.
    Discussion: As discussed in the NPRM, we are revising Sec. Sec.  
656.21(d)-(f) and 656.22(d)-(f) to address project planning, including 
a consideration of a project's intended outcomes, the alignment of 
project activities and intended outcomes with the purposes of the 
program, and the evaluation plan for the project. A project's goals and 
plans must align with the program purposes, but applicants will 
determine the goals and plans that are appropriate to their proposed 
projects. We will provide pre-application technical assistance to 
provide more detailed guidance to applicants regarding these selection 
criteria.
    Changes: None.

Evaluation Plans for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter appreciated the clarity of the proposed 
selection criteria related to evaluation and noted the proposed 
approach clearly defined impact metrics. Two commenters noted that 
high-level outcomes cannot be effectively tracked without expensive and 
complex evaluation plans. One commenter lauded the perceived change 
from tracking individual activities to tracking high-level outcomes but 
noted that the impact of certain initiatives may not be fully realized 
within a single project period. One commenter welcomed explicit 
openness to non-quantitative data as a component of evaluation plans in 
the proposed selection criteria. Two commenters indicated grantees 
already include qualitative data in evaluation plans.
    Discussion: We agree that focusing on the intended outcomes of a 
project is likely to lead to useful evaluation plans that build 
evidence of project impact in a more effective manner than evaluation 
plans that simply track the completion of project activities. We 
already work with grantees during routine monitoring throughout the 
project period of an award to ensure that project activities are 
implemented. In responding to the selection criteria, applicants should 
articulate a proposed project's intended outcomes and how they plan to 
evaluate the extent to which those intended outcomes are realized by 
the end of the project period. We are aware that complex evaluation 
plans may be costly and time-consuming, but reasonable costs for 
evaluation activities are allowable. We expect grantees to track the 
attainment of goals and the realization of intended outcomes in as 
cost-effective manner as possible. We anticipate this approach will 
allow grantees to track and reflect on progress toward these goals and 
outcomes, even if the impact of project activities is not yet fully 
realized by the end of the project period. We have revised the final 
selection criteria addressing project planning and evaluation to 
clarify that they pertain to ``proposed'' projects and ``intended'' 
outcomes, as evaluating the actual attainment of these intended 
outcomes is not possible until after the project period begins.
    As commenters noted, the inclusion of qualitative and quantitative 
data in evaluation plans is commonplace among grantees. We believe 
applicants should have the option to propose an evaluation plan that 
best aligns with a project's intended outcomes and proposed activities.
    Changes: We have changed all references to ``project'' and 
``project outcomes'' in the selection criteria addressing project 
planning and evaluation to ``proposed project'' and ``proposed 
project's intended outcomes,'' respectively.

Competitive Preference Priorities for the NRC Program and the FLAS 
Fellowships Program

    Comments: Two commenters provided comments about specific 
priorities that we have used in past competitions, but that were not in 
the proposed regulations.
    Discussion: These comments address competitive preference 
priorities for the most recent NRC and FLAS competitions and go beyond 
the

[[Page 68745]]

regulations currently under consideration. However, we appreciate the 
comments insofar as they help inform the design of future competitions.
    Changes: None.

Reporting Requirements for the NRC Program and the FLAS Fellowships 
Program

    Comments: A commenter requested that we add a method for measuring 
and reporting the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation, but the 
statute does not address reporting requirements for the NRC and FLAS 
Fellowships Programs related to diverse perspectives. We incorporate 
reporting on this topic into the routine performance reporting 
requirements for grantees under these programs.
    Changes: None.

Cooperation Among National Resource Centers

    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern about how Sec.  
656.1(a) characterized grantees under the NRC Program as a group that 
acts cooperatively to meet the program purposes, noting that it could 
be interpreted as a mandate for specific project activities. One of 
these commenters noted that collaboration is valuable. Another 
commenter noted the proposed change holds promise. One commenter noted 
the proposed change may have an unintended consequence of reducing 
collaboration between NRCs and community colleges and minority-serving 
institutions. The commenter also indicated that major research 
universities already work collaboratively with one another. Two 
commenters expressed support for the proposed changes and described how 
collaboration among current NRCs has been critical to Southeast Asian 
studies. One of these commenters suggested that collaboration should be 
a point of emphasis for the NRC Program. One commenter asked about the 
type of documentation that will be required to demonstrate cooperation.
    Discussion: Cooperation and collaboration are vital approaches to 
addressing national needs for area studies and modern foreign language 
education in the United States. The example of Southeast Asian studies 
illustrates how grantees take a joint approach to addressing national 
needs for the purpose of leveraging scarce resources that will create 
additional educational opportunities for postsecondary students at 
multiple IHEs. Moreover, the comments present a false dichotomy between 
cooperation among NRCs and between these NRCs and minority-serving 
institutions. In fact, some minority-serving institutions are current 
grantees under the NRC Program. The regulations do not require specific 
project activities or documentation. On the contrary, the regulations 
provide applicants with substantial flexibility to propose a wide range 
of project activities that serve the program purposes. The NRC Program 
provides awards to multiple IHEs that serve as national resources for 
area studies and modern foreign language education. A programmatic 
commitment to cooperation supports the program's purpose.
    Changes: None.

Program Eligibility for the NRC Program

    Comments: One commenter highlighted the disparities in higher 
education funding in the United States and suggested that NRC program 
funds should be directed to public university systems in cities of 
known disparity. The commenter also suggested considering the size of 
an IHE's endowment in determining program eligibility.
    Discussion: The statute sets the basic eligibility criteria for 
this program, including that all IHEs or consortia of IHEs are eligible 
to apply. Furthermore, the statute specifically excludes the 
consideration of geographical distribution within the United States as 
a criterion for making awards.\9\ All awards under the NRC program are 
made through a determination of excellence, per statutory requirements. 
The final rule, particularly through the selection criteria for 
undergraduate NRCs, supports the creation of a diverse network of 
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 20 U.S.C. 1127(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.

Undergraduate National Resource Centers

    Comments: One commenter supported the effort to highlight the 
differences between comprehensive and undergraduate NRCs at Sec.  
656.3(b)-(c) but contended that any change likely would not increase 
the diversity of the network of undergraduate NRCs. Several commenters 
emphasized that linking program eligibility to the Carnegie 
Classification of IHEs, especially through counts of degrees awarded, 
would be problematic for the NRC Program and that any change affecting 
the definition of the undergraduate NRC category potentially would 
eliminate several current NRCs hosted at IHEs with an R1 designation 
and limit the overall diversity of institutions funded through the 
undergraduate NRC category by excluding universities with an R1 
designation, public land grant universities, and other types of 
institutions. One commenter noted that the proposed regulations did not 
include any limit on eligibility based on the numbers of degrees 
awarded. One commenter noted that the proposed rule potentially would 
be more restrictive than the program statute if the undergraduate NRC 
category were limited to four-year baccalaureate colleges. The 
commentor also stated that large universities, especially universities 
with an R1 classification, have substantial institutional capacity that 
allows for the maximal leveraging of grant funds, even if the 
institutional commitment to area studies is limited to undergraduate 
education. One commenter offered a similar observation about the 
capacity of larger universities, especially those with an R1 
classification. The commenter also suggested definitional criteria to 
identify undergraduate NRCs, such as an IHE's or academic unit's 
commitment to undergraduate education, degrees awarded by a particular 
academic unit, or the percentage of funding or teaching activity 
dedicated to undergraduate education. One commenter highlighted that 
any consideration of institutional characteristics may obscure the role 
played by current undergraduate NRCs as supporters of academic units 
that predominantly or exclusively serve large numbers of undergraduate 
students, despite the institution's overall level of engagement in 
graduate education. One commenter also described undergraduate NRCs as 
the foundation on which new comprehensive NRCs are built. Rather than 
focusing on the size of an institution or the number of degrees 
awarded, the commenter suggested categorizing Centers based on a 
proposed Center's primary student audience and considering the total 
number of awards an institution receives under the NRC Program as an 
alternative method for distinguishing comprehensive NRCs from 
undergraduate NRCs. Two commenters noted that counting degrees offered 
within a specific area studies specialty at a university is difficult 
because institutional categories for educational programs may not 
identify the entire population of students engaged in area studies, 
which would complicate implementing a precise requirement based on the 
number of degrees awarded in a single area studies specialty.

[[Page 68746]]

    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' variety of viewpoints on 
this issue. Under the regulations, the undergraduate NRC category is 
not based solely on the number or types of degrees awarded at an IHE. 
As commenters noted, in the NPRM, we stated that, in the context of 
proposed Sec.  656.22(b)(1), an institution ``predominantly'' serves 
undergraduate students when baccalaureate or higher degrees represent 
at least 50 percent of all degrees but where fewer than 50 master's 
degrees or 20 doctoral degrees were awarded in the most recent year 
preceding the application deadline for which data is available. We are 
revising Sec.  656.22(b)(1) to shift the focus from the institution's 
overall program offerings and mission to more simply evaluate the 
quality of relevant academic programs available to undergraduate 
students, and, accordingly, in these final regulations, we do not 
consider what it means to ``predominantly'' serve undergraduate 
students at the institutional level. We have revised Sec.  656.30(b)(7) 
to provide that, for undergraduate Centers, project activities funded 
under the NRC Program must predominantly benefit the instruction and 
training of undergraduate students. This change aligns with the shift 
in focus from institutional characteristics to the proposed project and 
an institution's academic programs. This limitation also aligns with 
the selection criteria at Sec. Sec.  656.22(d)(1) and 656.22(e)(2), 
which reference definitional criteria at Sec.  656.3(c), as well as the 
statutory definitional characteristic that undergraduate centers make 
``training available predominantly to undergraduate students.'' \10\ 
Furthermore, we agree limiting eligibility for the undergraduate NRC 
category solely to four-year colleges would run counter to the 
statutory definition of undergraduate centers, which prescribes that 
such a center should be ``an administrative unit of an IHE, including 
but not limited to 4-year colleges.'' \11\ These changes better align 
the selection criteria and cost limitations with the statute. 
Accordingly, all IHEs in the United States that otherwise meet the 
general definition will remain eligible to apply under the 
undergraduate NRC category.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10).
    \11\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(10).
    \12\ 20 U.S.C. 1132(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reaffirm our commitment to implement the program statute in a 
manner that clearly differentiates comprehensive NRCs from 
undergraduate NRCs based on the definitional characteristics outlined 
in the statute because we share commenters' interest in ensuring the 
NRC Program will support ``a diverse network of undergraduate'' Centers 
and programs.\13\ Although we agree with commenters that large, 
research-oriented IHEs with substantial commitments to advanced 
graduate education may allow undergraduate NRCs to leverage grant funds 
in ways that are not possible at smaller institutions, comprehensive 
NRCs located at such universities already avail themselves of such 
opportunities. Moreover, this is not one of the statutory definitional 
characteristics of either center type and treating it as such would 
risk overlooking the substantial contributions that smaller 
institutions, such as four-year colleges, make to the national 
educational infrastructure in foreign language and area studies fields, 
while encouraging uniformity rather than diversity among applicant and 
grantee institutions. Consequently, the regulations recognize the 
distinct purposes of comprehensive NRCs and undergraduate NRCs without 
creating a preference for a single type of IHE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters raised the possibilities of focusing on the numbers of 
degrees awarded in area studies fields, the primary types of students 
served by a Center, or the institutional resources allocated to 
undergraduate education as alternatives to a narrow focus on the number 
of degrees across all fields and levels awarded at an institution. None 
of these suggestions would represent a feasible alternative that would 
address the statutory definitional requirements for Center types. 
Precisely counting the number of area studies degrees awarded by an 
institution, as commenters mentioned, is extremely difficult if this 
count spans all educational programs with relevant area studies and 
foreign language components rather than a more limited set of formal 
area studies educational programs. Given the diversity of educational 
programs and institutions, we would not be able to enforce a single 
standardized method for counting that is directly comparable across all 
institutions, so a numerical eligibility criterion for undergraduate 
centers likely would benefit institutions that implemented the most 
advantageous counting methodologies without further aligning centers 
with the statutory definitional characteristics. Likewise, determining 
the primary student audience for a Center or an institutional 
allocation of resources to undergraduate education would fail to make 
meaningful distinctions between comprehensive Centers and undergraduate 
Centers. Both types of Centers support undergraduate education and 
introducing a requirement for precise calculations of resource 
allocations for undergraduate area studies and language education would 
face the same difficulties as precise degree counts. A Center as an 
administrative unit within an IHE cannot be neatly untangled from the 
rest of the institution.
    Rather than introducing numerical criteria not described in the 
program statute, we choose to emphasize the statutory definitional 
criteria and the program purpose, including the statute's interest in 
providing grants to a diverse network of undergraduate centers. The 
selection criteria for undergraduate Centers in these regulations 
reflect this approach.
    The HEA does not provide that an undergraduate Center represents a 
stage in a process that concludes with the establishment of a 
comprehensive Center. The purposes of the two Center types are 
sufficiently distinct that we do not presume one type of Center will 
evolve into the other type over time, even though the statute does not 
preclude it. Applicants make the final decisions about the NRC type 
they are applying under and their proposed project activities.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  656.3(c)(7) to emphasize 
undergraduate education. We have revised Sec.  656.22 to more clearly 
emphasize that undergraduate Centers should focus on undergraduate 
students as well as to highlight the formation of a diverse network of 
undergraduate Centers. We have also revised Sec.  656.22(c) regarding 
library collections for undergraduate Centers and Sec.  656.30(b)(7) to 
indicate that undergraduate Centers must benefit the instruction and 
training of undergraduate students.

Special Purpose Grants Under the NRC Program

    Comments: Eight commenters approved of the clarification provided 
about special purpose grants in Sec.  656.4 as well as the selection 
criteria developed for those grants in Sec.  656.23. One of those 
commenters did express some confusion about what entities might be able 
to apply for these special grants. Many of the approving comments 
specifically mentioned that library collections and summer language 
institutes could benefit from such grants. One other commenter 
suggested defining special purpose grants in a way that addresses the 
need for collaborative infrastructure projects in scholarly

[[Page 68747]]

communication with open access in mind. One commenter expressed concern 
that applying for a special purpose grant would require extra effort 
for an NRC grantee.
    Discussion: The special purpose grants described in Sec.  656.4 are 
authorized under 20 U.S.C. 1122(a)(4) as a component of the NRC 
Program. Accordingly, NRCs are the only eligible entities. The 
selection and implementation of these grants occurs independently of 
any awards made by parts of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
other than part 656. Consequently, these special purpose grants are 
unrelated to any forms of Federal assistance authorized under the 
Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange act of 1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act) 
or by other sections of title VI of the HEA. Selection of projects for 
funding as awards described in Sec.  656.4 is separate from the 
selection of comprehensive and undergraduate NRCs for funding, as 
described at Sec.  656.20(a). Accordingly, while applying for a special 
purpose grant will require extra effort for NRCs interested in 
applying, there is no requirement that NRCs apply and if they do so 
they will be applying to a separate program with its own separate 
application. We would expect, therefore, that NRCs would only apply to 
this program if the perceived potential benefits of receiving an award 
would outweigh the burden of completing and submitting an application.
    Changes: We have changed the wording at Sec.  656.4 to ``special 
purpose grants,'' and added the word ``additional'' to Sec.  656.23, to 
more clearly delineate them from NRC grants.

Institutional Capacity at IHEs, Project Design, and the NRC Program

    Comments: In response to the selection criteria in Sec. Sec.  
656.21(a)(2), 656.22(a)(2), 656.21(a)(4), and 656.22(a) relating to 
institutional capacity, one commenter noted that NRC leaders do not 
always play a role in institutional leadership. The commenter suggested 
that enhancing institutional capacity might be understood as allocating 
resources to help develop and support programming. The commenter 
alluded to a special role for the current NRCs in the International 
category as the primary agents of capacity building.
    Discussion: We adopt selection criteria in order to implement a 
statutorily required determination of excellence. The selection 
criteria incorporate an evaluation of existing capacity as well as 
proposed project activities. The regulations define a NRC as an 
administrative unit with the capacity to coordinate educational 
initiatives related to its area of focus. The new selection criteria 
addressing institutional capacity in the regulations reformulate the 
criteria addressing long-term impact of proposed grant activities that 
have been a component of the NRC Program for decades. Accordingly, the 
extent to which an applicant proposes to build institutional capacity 
that will outlast the project period is an appropriate indicator that 
an applicant is capable of coordinating educational initiatives and 
that Federal funds are being spent effectively for project activities 
in support of program purposes. Eliminating these criteria would not be 
responsive to the finding of Congress that, ``Systematic efforts are 
necessary to enhance the capacity of IHEs in the United States for (A) 
producing graduates with international and foreign language expertise 
and knowledge; and (B) research regarding such expertise and 
knowledge.'' \14\ Similarly, removing these criteria would not serve 
the program purposes or national needs related to expertise and 
knowledge in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other similar 
fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 20 U.S.C. 1121(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are aware that applicants and grantees may face difficulties and 
challenges when building institutional capacity through their projects, 
but we are not convinced that doing so is impossible in the context of 
the NRC Program. The comments on this topic fail to account for 
ambitious and successful projects executed by grantees over many 
decades across all program categories, especially in the categories 
with a geographic area of focus. Grantees are highly effective in 
allocating funds in ways intended to contribute to long-term effects. 
Grantees have used grant funds to cover substantial portions of the 
cost associated with seeding faculty hires. Grantees have also piloted 
courses using grant funds to demonstrate that certain courses, 
especially those in the less commonly taught languages, are viable and 
can be sustained without grant funding or with substantially reduced 
amounts of grant funding. Grantees routinely support library 
collections development. Grantees also build sustainable outreach 
programs that can exist without grant funds or that can be expanded 
using grant funds because core elements of these efforts have been 
institutionalized.
    In implementing these discretionary grant programs, we are adopting 
selection criteria that support the selection of applications for 
funding from applicants who are likely to have this type of impact. The 
success of grantees in these initiatives may be related to the choice 
of project activities and the ability to align project activities with 
the missions of their respective institutions. The new selection 
criteria require the articulation of alignment among project 
activities, the intended outcomes of the project and the program 
purpose. We expect this approach will make project design more 
transparent and intentional by requiring applicants to explain the 
alignment between programming or activities and a particular purpose or 
goal. According to this approach, the number or variety of activities 
funded by a project is much less important or consequential than the 
contribution that each high quality and program-relevant activity is 
likely to make toward realizing the project's intended outcomes.
    When revising these program regulations, we must adopt a 
perspective that accounts for the high degree of variation among IHEs. 
The comment attempts to generalize a condition that only exists at IHEs 
that receive many concurrent awards under the NRC Program by suggesting 
that NRCs in the current international category are the most capable 
agents of capacity building, especially at institutions with many area 
studies centers. The NRC Program benefits from the diversity of 
organizational arrangements and experimentation in organizational forms 
at IHEs. We appreciate the cooperation among grantees implied in this 
statement, but the precise nature of the relationships among 
administrative units within an institution is determined by many 
contingent organizational factors that are not components of the NRC 
Program. In addition, if a proposed project primarily exists to 
coordinate other proposed projects from area studies centers, the 
project may struggle at the implementation phase if the area studies 
centers are not also funded and thus unable to contribute project 
resources. Moreover, although grantee institutions may develop 
hierarchical organizational structures to administer area and 
international studies centers, nothing in the program statute requires 
or implies a fixed hierarchy among Centers across the program's 
administrative world area categories. Institutional circumstances give 
rise to a variety of arrangements, and grantees thrive in many 
different environments.
    The comments point to the need to reevaluate the terminology in 
Sec. Sec.  656.21(d)(3) and 656.22(d)(3) as well as in selection 
criteria that address project outcomes. The final regulations 
incorporate a broader interest in both

[[Page 68748]]

academic and institutional capacity. We decline to define these terms 
in these regulations, but we generally interpret academic and 
institutional capacity as the human, organizational, material, and 
intellectual resources that enable teaching, research, and the 
dissemination of knowledge related to area studies and international 
studies. We expect grantees' efforts to build academic or institutional 
capacity that will strengthen the educational infrastructure in their 
respective areas of focus.
    Changes: We have added the phrase ``academic and/or'' before the 
word ``institutional'' in Sec. Sec.  656.21(d)(3), 656.22(d)(3), and 
656.23(a)(4).

Financial Support and Staff for the NRC Program

    Comments: Two commenters stated that a selection criterion 
addressing support for a center as administrative unit would elicit a 
response different from a criterion that addressed all support at an 
institution, leading to a concern that an institution would appear to 
lack sufficient support. These two commenters expressed confusion about 
the change to Sec. Sec.  656.21 (a)(2) and 656.22 (a)(2) since the 
existing regulations already ask for qualifications of Center staff. 
One of those commenters, however, went on to object to the proposed 
regulations' limitation of these selection criteria to Center staff. 
One of these commenters also noted the proposed approach would 
eliminate consideration of personnel qualifications of individuals 
apart from the project director and Center staff from the selection 
process. One commenter noted that differentiating support for a 
Center's project from more general support for a Center may be 
difficult and requested a specific definition of ``institutional 
support.'' One commenter welcomed this change in focus and noted that 
the reduced scope may lead to a reduction in burden hours associated 
with the application. Three commenters strongly objected to the 
proposed change since the commenters' institutions rely on teaching 
faculty and staff to run their Centers' projects. These commenters were 
concerned that limiting these selection criteria to the qualifications 
of Center staff would restrict consideration of faculty qualifications, 
leading to the failure to receive title VI funding. One commenter 
suggested that personnel qualifications have subgroupings of university 
administration, Center administration, Center staff, and Center faculty 
and lecturers. One commenter expressed approval of the changes to 
Sec. Sec.  656.21 (a)(2) and 656.22 (a)(2).
    Discussion: These selection criteria address the administrative 
capacity of the administrative unit on campus responsible for 
implementation of the grant project. Transparency about the resources 
available to that unit is important because these resources provide 
indicators of excellence and support responsible stewardship of Federal 
funds during project implementation. At a minimum, we expect all 
grantees to be capable of administering Federal funds, overseeing the 
implementation of project activities, and meeting all reporting 
obligations. Although applicants may discuss units and arrangements 
that support the administrative unit's capacity to administer the 
grant, a wide-ranging discussion of all resources relevant to an 
applicant's area of focus is unnecessary because other selection 
criteria address specific types of support in relation to instruction, 
research, libraries, and outreach. Likewise, other selection criteria 
allow an evaluation of the qualifications of specific types of 
personnel, such as faculty, in an appropriate context. The selection 
criteria allow for an evaluation of the administrative capacity of a 
proposed NRC as well as of an evaluation of other personnel and 
resources in a manner that does not conflate the two. The presence of 
highly qualified faculty at an institution may support significant 
research and effective instruction without directly contributing to 
project administration. Similarly, a project is unlikely to be 
successful if several highly qualified individuals are not directly 
engaged in project administration. All these elements are present in 
the selection criteria. We do not see the need to define 
``institutional support.'' However, we are persuaded to revise the 
selection criteria to adequately account for the full range of 
personnel directly involved in project implementation, including 
faculty who administer project activities.
    Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec.  656.21(a)(2) and 656.22(a)(2) 
to include ``other staff, including relevant staff and faculty'' who 
``administer the proposed Center and oversee the implementation of 
project activities.''

Outreach at National Level for the NRC Program

    Comments: In response to the selection criteria at Sec. Sec.  
656.21(c) and 656.22(c), two commenters suggested allowing NRC grantees 
to determine national initiatives after the grant is awarded.
    Discussion: Plans for outreach activities must be devised as part 
of the application process so that expert reviewers can review, assess, 
and score those plans. This means any planning for outreach activities 
with national impact must be devised prior to award.
    Changes: None.

Allowable Costs for the NRC Program

    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern at the proposed cost 
limitations in Sec.  656.30(5) for the NRC Program related to personnel 
costs because personnel who are not involved in the instruction of Less 
Commonly Taught Languages may be an important component of implementing 
proposed projects. Two commenters specifically addressed the limitation 
on compensation for project directors.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that project personnel serve in many 
different roles to support the successful implementation of projects 
funded under the NRC Program. Personnel such as educational outreach 
specialists make critical contributions to these projects, and many 
activities simply would not be possible or implemented as successfully 
without such skilled individuals. The regulations strike a balance 
between ensuring institutions' commitment to the project and providing 
applicants with the flexibility necessary to propose high-quality 
projects that address needs in area studies and modern foreign language 
education.
    The addition of a limitation on compensation for individuals who 
are not engaged in the instruction of Less Commonly Taught Languages 
supports this aim. Although funds from a single award may not cover the 
cost of more than 50 percent of the compensation, including fringe 
benefits, for such an individual, multiple awards may fund such 
personnel up to 100 percent of actual compensation costs, even though 
no one award may go above this limit.
    The project director is the individual identified as the ``project 
director'' or ``recipient project director'' on the grant award notice 
(GAN) because they have sufficient authority and overall responsibility 
for implementing a project selected for funding on behalf of an IHE. 
Some grantees may refer to this role as a ``principal investigator'' 
for administrative purposes. The project director is considered key 
personnel. Project directors typically serve as the director of an 
administrative unit and are faculty at the grantee institution. Because 
these individuals frequently fill administrative roles at their 
institutions and receive compensation for that role, the cost 
limitation on compensation for project directors supports the NRC 
Program's goal of supplementing rather than supplanting grant funds. 
Project

[[Page 68749]]

directors usually are experts in one or more aspects of area studies 
and modern foreign language education, and the person initially 
identified as the project director might change during the project 
period because these roles tend to be associated with an individual's 
role within an institution. For example, an individual responsible for 
implementing a specific project activity based on their expertise may 
serve as the project director for a portion of the project period, even 
if they were not initially identified as the project director in the 
NRC application. Accordingly, project directors should not be prevented 
from receiving other allowable, reasonable, and allocable payments 
related to the implementation of activities described in an application 
selected for funding under the NRC Program.
    In reconsidering allowable personnel costs, the Department further 
reviewed allowable costs and cost limitations for the program more 
generally. In addition to Center personnel, faculty, and other 
university staff, we determined that alumni also may contribute to 
project implementation and a Center's effort to evaluate the quality of 
project implementation. Accordingly, we added alumni to the list of 
appropriate objects of linkages explicitly authorized by Sec.  
656.30(a)(8). We also made additional technical changes to update 
terminology related to approvals and add clarity. These technical 
changes will support efficient program implementation.
    Changes: We added alumni to Sec.  656.30(a)(8). We removed the 
words ``are pre-approved'' and replaced them with ``have received prior 
approval'' at Sec.  656.30(b)(2). We combined proposed Sec.  
656.30(b)(4) with proposed Sec.  656.30(b)(5) and expanded the 
discussion to clarify limitations on personnel costs. We renumbered the 
remaining elements in Sec.  656.30(b). We removed ``pre-approval'' from 
what is now Sec.  656.30(b)(5) and replaced it with ``prior approval.''

Educational Program Fellow Eligibility Criterion for the FLAS 
Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter welcomed the attention to a fellow's 
educational program and the encouragement to develop formal curricular 
options in area studies and modern foreign language instruction at 
Sec.  657.4. Six commenters expressed concern that many educational 
programs, especially programs in professional and STEM fields, do not 
have explicit requirements for language instruction, so the number of 
eligible students in these programs potentially would decrease. Two 
commenters noted the specific difficulty of integrating language or 
area studies instruction into STEM programs, but one commenter 
indicated that such integration may be possible within a decade. One 
commenter suggested rewording the criterion to allow for the option for 
instruction or research in area studies, specifically to maximize the 
potential eligibility of students in STEM fields. One commenter 
suggested limiting the criterion to academic year fellowships. One 
commenter expressed a general concern that the criterion would be 
problematic for students with financial need and students from 
underrepresented groups.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' analysis and suggestions 
related to the educational program eligibility criterion for the FLAS 
Fellowships Program. We acknowledge that any change to the fellow 
eligibility criteria for the program may change the composition of 
fellowship recipients. As discussed in the NPRM, we maintain that a 
holistic emphasis on educational programs rather than solely focusing 
on individual courses during a specific academic term is more likely 
than other approaches to ensure that fellowships are supporting the 
structured and intentional training of experts within appropriate 
curricular frameworks. Such a reliance on educational programs fits 
broadly within the accreditation framework for IHEs and ensures that 
IHEs maintain control over instructional content and curriculum. 
However, we acknowledge the concerns raised by commenters that students 
in STEM and professional educational programs with a substantial 
commitment to area or international studies may be unable to satisfy 
fellowship eligibility criteria because of the highly structured nature 
of these programs. Accordingly, the final regulations balance the 
program's purpose to cultivate expertise through advanced training in 
area and international studies with an interest in cultivating diverse 
types of expertise across a wide variety of academic specializations 
that promote national security and prosperity.
    We accept the commenter's suggestion to limit the application of an 
educational program eligibility criterion to fellows receiving academic 
year fellowships. The FLAS Fellowships program has long operated under 
the assumption that academic year fellowships and summer fellowships 
serve distinct purposes. The academic year fellowships have required 
and continue to require that fellows enroll in both area studies 
courses and modern foreign language courses while they pursue their 
degrees. The academic year fellowships also provide limited support for 
dissertation research and writing. By contrast, summer fellowships have 
been and remain more narrowly focused exclusively on the intensive 
study of a foreign language. The latter category of fellowships 
frequently supports fellows to study at overseas language programs or 
at domestic summer language institutes, both of which represent vital 
components of area studies and foreign language education 
infrastructure. Because most educational programs at IHEs do not 
include mandatory summer coursework, intensive summer language study is 
a viable mechanism for students in any field of study to increase their 
proficiency in a foreign language without delaying timely progress 
toward degree completion. This approach ensures that many qualified 
students across a multitude of IHEs will be eligible for summer 
fellowships.
    In general, we regard a student's educational program to encompass 
all formal curricular options available to a student at a given IHE. 
The nomenclature for these curricular options varies by institution. 
Such curricular options include, but are not limited to, major fields 
of study, general education requirements as well as any certificates, 
concentrations, specializations, minor fields of study, or other 
established components of an institution's curriculum. The common 
feature of these curricular options is that they represent a recognized 
and structured course of study for a student. In most cases, academic 
advisors, faculty, or some combination of both are knowledgeable about 
these options and, because these curricular options are a formal 
component of an institution's curriculum, institutions have 
demonstrated to accreditors that sufficient educational infrastructure 
exists to support these programs. This approach is quite flexible and 
recognizes that many students with a deep commitment to area studies 
and modern foreign language expertise do not enroll in a major field of 
study formally described as area studies or offered by a standalone 
interdisciplinary area studies department.
    Under Sec.  657.4(f), several educational program scenarios would 
meet the eligibility requirements for an academic year fellowship, such 
as an undergraduate pursuing a major in international studies that 
ordinarily allows a student to take courses in a regional 
specialization and a foreign language would be eligible. Likewise, an 
undergraduate student double majoring in computer science and history 
with a

[[Page 68750]]

minor in Chinese or any modern foreign language would be eligible if 
the history major ordinarily includes courses on internationally 
oriented topics. An undergraduate with general education requirements 
for foreign language courses and courses on global topics would be 
eligible. A doctoral student in a political science department pursuing 
a concentration in an internationally oriented field such as 
international relations or comparative politics would be eligible, 
provided that the degree also ordinarily includes an expectation of 
proficiency in one or more foreign languages. A master's student 
pursuing a specialty in global public health and a graduate certificate 
in African studies that incorporates a language course requirement 
likewise would be eligible for an academic year fellowship. These 
examples are not an exhaustive list of all eligible educational 
programs, but these examples are illustrative of the general principle 
that are codified with the criterion. The core expectation is that the 
student has selected one or a combination of curricular options that, 
when considered in their totality, requires or ordinarily includes 
coursework in area studies or international studies as well as a modern 
foreign language component. Academic year fellows must satisfy the 
educational program eligibility criterion during the fellowship term, 
so a student who aspires or plans to pursue a suitable educational 
program generally without completing the process determined by their 
IHE to declare, select, or otherwise formally indicate their intention 
to complete an appropriate educational program generally would not be 
eligible to receive a fellowship.
    This curriculum-based approach to the educational program 
eligibility criterion aligns fellowship support with a fellow's overall 
academic trajectory. Although interdisciplinary area studies programs 
are likely to meet this expectation, such programs are not the only 
pathway to satisfying the educational program eligibility criterion. 
The selection criterion in Sec.  657.21(b)(1) requires applicants to 
explain the extent to which the applicant's curriculum provides 
training options for students from a variety of disciplines and 
professional fields, and the extent to which the curriculum and 
associated requirements (including language requirements) are 
appropriate for the applicant's area of focus and result in educational 
programs of high quality for students who will be served by the 
proposed allocation of fellowships. We encourage applicants to address 
this selection criterion with the educational program eligibility 
criterion in mind because applicants may describe relevant educational 
programs that are not formal area studies programs when addressing this 
selection criterion.
    Despite the substantial flexibility incorporated into the 
educational program eligibility criterion, we acknowledge that students 
specializing in STEM or professional fields are likely to face an acute 
lack of eligible educational programs, especially at the graduate 
level, and that the creation of such programs can only be accomplished 
through substantial and sustained effort over an extended period of 
time. Consequently, we have revised the criterion to incorporate an 
alternative approach to the educational program requirement for 
students in educational programs that include substantial amounts of 
coursework in STEM or professional fields. The revised approach allows 
students who meet this description to demonstrate fellowship 
eligibility by showing they have the option to take required area 
studies and modern foreign language courses required by the fellowship 
and by selecting these courses under the advisement of one or more 
individuals with appropriate area studies qualifications and knowledge 
of the student's educational program. In the absence of a formal 
curricular option, this advising requirement ensures the fellow's 
courses are chosen with a degree of intentionality and in support of 
the student's academic trajectory. For the purposes of interpreting 
this eligibility criterion, we generally would regard professional 
fields as those involving specialized training that typically involve 
educational programs leading to professional degrees and/or licensure 
prior to beginning professional practice. These fields include, but are 
not limited to, law, medicine, education, and dentistry.
    This ad hoc approach may prove less necessary in the future when 
appropriate formal curricular options become available because students 
specializing in these fields will be best served when they have routine 
access to suitable instruction and training through formal curricular 
options. Formal curricular options not only indicate an intentional 
academic and intellectual commitment to students, but these formal 
curricular options also are potential ways to reduce or eliminate 
administrative barriers that prevent students from accessing suitable 
training and instruction, such as different tuition rates within an 
institution or incompatible procedures for course registration. The 
revised approach is not intended to imply that any preference or 
special benefit is afforded to students in professional or STEM fields. 
Rather, this criterion is intended to support the overall purpose of 
the FLAS Fellowships Program, which is to support the development of 
experts through advanced training in modern foreign languages as well 
as area studies or the international aspects of other fields.
    We distribute a limited amount of funding under the NRC Program and 
the FLAS Fellowships Program on the basis of excellence to stimulate 
activities that align with the purposes of these programs. Foreign 
language and area studies curricula are a reasonable component of this 
determination and for subsequent determinations of the eligibility of 
FLAS fellows. The program's commitment to interdisciplinarity 
necessarily includes support for innovative interdisciplinary curricula 
that integrate these types of expertise with professional and STEM 
fields. Additionally, achieving this form of interdisciplinarity may be 
achieved from more than one direction and more than one pathway. In 
addition to expanding the representation of international and foreign 
language education within STEM and professional programs, programs with 
a firm grounding in international and foreign language education may 
innovate by integrating appropriate elements of STEM and professional 
fields.
    Education also extends beyond a single degree at a single IHE. 
Given the lifelong nature of learning, FLAS fellows may pursue multiple 
degrees or postsecondary education credentials, for example, an 
undergraduate who majors in international studies will continue to 
benefit from expertise in international topics and languages if that 
same undergraduate enrolls in a graduate program in a STEM or 
professional field. The FLAS Fellowships Program is not the only 
program that supports the intersection of STEM education, professional 
education, and international and foreign language education. Section 
656.30(a)(10) specifically allows NRCs to engage in activities intended 
to increase modern foreign language proficiency among students in the 
STEM fields. IHEs may propose complementary projects that address the 
approaches and issues discussed above.
    Changes: We revised the introductory paragraph of Sec.  657.4 to 
indicate that the educational program requirement applies only to 
academic year FLAS fellows. Paragraph (c) of proposed

[[Page 68751]]

Sec.  657.4 has been moved and redesignated as paragraph (f) in the 
final regulations. This paragraph has been revised to clarify the 
general applicability of the educational program criterion and expanded 
to include Sec.  657.4(f)(2), which addresses the educational program 
eligibility criterion that applies to certain students in STEM and 
professional fields. In addition, paragraphs (d)-(f) of proposed Sec.  
657.4 have been redesignated as paragraphs (c)-(e).

Fellowship Payments Under the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: We received 33 comments that expressed criticism of the 
proposed change to a single stipend payment rather than a stipend 
payment and an institutional payment for FLAS fellowships. The 
criticism focused on tax implications for students, complications with 
Federal student aid, the potential loss of health insurance currently 
provided by some institutions, higher tuition costs, and other 
unintended consequences. Numerous commenters expressed concern that 
limiting FLAS to a stipend payment would increase the tax burden of 
students because a higher stipend would increase taxable income for 
students receiving FLAS fellowships. Some commenters indicated that a 
large stipend would complicate Federal student aid calculations, 
perhaps even leading FLAS students to max out their stipend allowance 
since some institutions place a limit on how much funding one student 
can receive in any given year. Other commenters expressed concern that 
at their institutions, issuing the fellowship using a stipend-only 
approach would make FLAS students ineligible for ``fellow'' status, 
which would have implications for tuition remission and health 
insurance provision at their institutions. One commenter also said that 
their institution includes fringe benefits as a component of the FLAS 
fellowship and the stipend-only approach would alter the status of FLAS 
fellows thereby complicating the administration of the fellowship. 
Given that the aim of using a stipend-only approach is to simplify FLAS 
administration, this commenter made the point that we are replacing 
complexity with a different form of complexity. Overall, commenters on 
this topic, all of whom indicated that they currently administer 
allocations of FLAS fellowships, appear to agree that the current 
approach to administering allocations of FLAS fellowships with separate 
stipend and institutional payments is likely to be easier and more 
beneficial to FLAS fellows than the changes proposed in the NPRM.
    Discussion: We proposed a stipend-only approach, in part, in an 
attempt to lighten the burden of administering FLAS grants at grantee 
institutions. We also wanted to provide FLAS fellows with more control 
over the funding they receive in the belief that it would provide 
flexibility while extending the reach of their funding. The comments we 
received allay the concerns we had. The commenters assured us that FLAS 
administration is not too burdensome and that instituting a stipend-
only payment is likely to cause unintended consequences that will not 
benefit FLAS fellows. The commenters also alerted us to other fees and 
expenses fellows have, including, but not limited to, health insurance 
premiums. Given the continued use of the institutional payment, we 
clarify the allowable costs for the institutional payment component of 
the fellowship in the final regulations. We also clarified how these 
payments interact with other Federal fellowships and added a disclosure 
requirement when a fellow receives multiple Federal fellowships to 
reduce the likelihood that an improper payment will be made. A FLAS 
fellow generally may receive the full amount of multiple stipend 
payments, provided the fellowships support distinct program purposes. 
However, the amount of a fellow's institutional payment under the FLAS 
Fellowships Program cannot exceed actual costs related to the fellow's 
cost of attendance. Moreover, certain allowances permissible under the 
FLAS Fellowships Program, such as dependent allowances, may be 
disallowed for an individual fellow if such a payment would be 
duplicative of a component of another Federal award.
    Changes: We have reverted to the two-payment system that the 
previous regulations used (see Sec.  657.5). We have expanded the 
definition of ``institutional payment'' at Sec.  657.7(b) to align the 
components of the payment with fees students are typically expected to 
pay as students of the institution they attend. We have included a 
definition of ``travel allowance'' as well at Sec.  657.7(b), which 
provides more detail and clarity as to what FLAS travel allowances may 
cover. We have clarified the applicability of the various fellowship 
payments and the notices announcing the permissibility and amounts of 
these payments in Sec.  657.5(c)-(d). We have added a disclosure 
requirement and further clarification related to multiple Federal 
fellowships at Sec.  657.30(g).

Advising for Fellows in the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: Three commenters indicated providing academic or career 
advising specifically for FLAS fellows would violate principles of 
equity by establishing a separate standard for fellows. One of these 
commenters suggested an alternative formulation for Sec.  657.21(c)(2), 
which would evaluate: ``engaged academic and career advising that is 
responsive to individual fellow's strengths and experiences.''
    Discussion: We do not agree that an expectation for advising would 
further distinguish a group of program beneficiaries under the FLAS 
Fellowships Program who have been selected to receive fellowships. IHEs 
that receive an allocation of fellowships and personnel responsible for 
administering FLAS fellowships at these IHEs must ensure that fellows 
meet fellowship requirements. This obligation necessarily entails 
providing relevant information to fellows and, to the extent possible, 
ensuring fellows have access to the necessary forms of advising because 
fellows have obligations that typically are distinct from the 
obligations common to all students at an institution. The proposed 
selection criterion at Sec.  657.21(c)(2), potentially extended the 
scope of advising issues related to compliance and safety, which are 
directly related to program implementation. The final selection 
criterion is more narrowly focused, but it does not preclude applicants 
from discussing all forms of advising available to fellows, including 
career advising.
    Changes: ``Career'' has been removed from Sec.  657.21(c)(2) and 
replaced with ``other relevant'' forms of advising that address 
``compliance with fellowship requirements.'' In addition, the other 
forms of advising now include, ``and, as appropriate, safety while 
studying outside the United States.''

Research and Study Abroad in the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter expressed satisfaction with the new 
language at Sec.  657.21(c)(4) clarifying the study abroad component of 
the Quality of Faculty and Academic Resources selection criterion for 
the FLAS Fellowships Program. The commenter believed it is important 
for FLAS to support advanced language study abroad.
    Discussion: We included this selection criterion because it is an 
important component of program design and supports the selection of 
applications for funding on the

[[Page 68752]]

statutorily required basis of excellence. FLAS fellows benefit greatly 
from access to opportunities to language instruction and research 
opportunities in the United States as well as outside the United 
States.
    Changes: None.

Role of Distance Education in the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: Three comments expressed support for the proposed 
inclusion of distance education as a means for fellows to satisfy 
course requirements for the FLAS Fellowships Program. One of these 
comments specifically indicated that distance education enhances access 
to courses at the national level.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support from commenters. Distance 
education may prove vital to expanding access to high quality 
instruction, especially in the Less Commonly Taught Languages.
    Changes: None.

Role of Internships in the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the allowability of 
internships for FLAS fellows.
    Discussion: Internships may help fellows achieve their educational 
and professional goals. However, as specified in the regulations, 
coursework or dissertation research remain the primary means for 
fellows to satisfy program requirements for the FLAS Fellowships 
Program. Nevertheless, we encourage fellows to engage in experiential 
learning opportunities that utilize their modern foreign language and 
area studies expertise.
    Changes: None.

Transfers of Funds Among Grantees Under the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: One commenter thought grantees should be allowed to 
transfer excess FLAS balances to other grantee IHEs that have received 
an allocation of fellowships. The commenter argued that this would 
enable collaboration as well as increase efficiency and flexibility in 
the FLAS Fellowships Program.
    Discussion: Under 2 CFR 200.308(c), grantees may not make changes 
to project scope and project objectives without prior Department 
approval. When an applicant institution submits its FLAS Fellowships 
Program application for an allocation of fellowships, it is requesting 
FLAS fellowships explicitly to serve eligible students at the applicant 
institution. In the case of an allocation of fellowships for Middle 
East studies, for example, the applicant institution commits to 
supporting students at that institution studying specific languages in 
the Middle East world area and related area studies training. If the 
applicant institution receives the grant supporting students studying 
the approved languages of the Middle East at that institution, that 
defines the scope of the project. Transferring excess funds from one 
FLAS grantee to another FLAS grantee would transfer funds to a project 
with a different scope, effectively changing the scope of the initial 
project.
    Changes: None.

Clock Hour

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In proposed Sec.  655.4, we defined ``clock hour'' for 
the purpose of part 655 and the International Education Programs, but 
we continued to use ``contact hour'' rather than ``clock hour'' in the 
proposed definition of ``intensive language instruction'' and in the 
NRC Program priority related to the intensity of language instruction 
in proposed Sec.  656.24(a)(3).
    Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec.  655.4(b) and 656.24(a)(3) to 
substitute ``clock hour'' for ``contact hour'' in the definition of 
``intensive language instruction'' and in a possible priority for the 
NRC Program, respectively.

Institutional Responsibilities Under the FLAS Fellowships Program

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: We believe it would be helpful to provide institutions 
receiving allocations of fellowships under part 657 a single, 
streamlined reference to their responsibilities under this part. 
Accordingly, we are adding Sec.  657.34 to assist grantees by providing 
a consolidated reference point of the post-award responsibilities that 
attach to an institution receiving funding under this part. This 
administrative addition does not add or alter any substantive 
responsibilities of institutions receiving funding under part 657.
    Changes: The Department has added Sec.  657.34 to clarify and 
contain a single reference to the post-award responsibilities of an 
institution receiving funding under this part with respect to the 
administration of fellowship awards.

Good Academic Standing for FLAS Fellows

    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Both the original and proposed regulations utilized the 
term ``good standing'' in the regulations for the FLAS Fellowships 
Program. This term may be unnecessarily ambiguous without additional 
explanatory statements. We are clarifying the regulations to specify 
that our interest is in academic standing rather than any other types 
of standing. This term is widely used by IHEs and the precise meaning 
of the term follows the institutional policies at each IHE that 
receives an allocation of fellowships.
    Changes: The term ``academic'' was inserted between ``good'' and 
``standing'' in Sec.  657.31(c).

Stakeholder Engagement

    Comments: One commenter, who submitted a comment on behalf of 
multiple associations, suggested a 30-day window for public comments 
may reduce the number of comments submitted. The commenter expressed a 
hope that we will take comments seriously despite the short comment 
period.
    Discussion: We have received numerous comments on the proposed 
regulations, including the commenter's comment. We assure the commenter 
that we have taken all comments seriously, including this one.
    Changes: None.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Secretary must determine 
whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, 
subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as 
amended by E.O. 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

[[Page 68753]]

    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by E.O. 14094).
    We have also reviewed these regulations under E.O. 13563, which 
supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and 
definitions governing regulatory review established in E.O. 12866. To 
the extent permitted by law, E.O. 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or providing 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    E.O. 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best available 
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and 
costs as accurately as possible.'' OMB's OIRA has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    The Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both 
quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action, and we are 
issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that 
their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize 
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows and the reasons stated 
elsewhere in this document, the Department believes that the final 
regulations are consistent with the principles in E.O. 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, and net budget 
impacts.

Discussion of Costs and Benefits

    The potential costs to applicants, grant recipients, and the 
Department associated with the final regulations will be minimal, while 
there will be greater potential benefits to applicants, grant 
recipients, and the Department. We anticipate a minimal increase in NRC 
Program and FLAS Fellowships Program applications due to the revision 
of the selection criteria, so we foresee minimal impact on the 
Department's time and cost of reviewing these applications.
    Over the last four years, the amount of funding for the NRC Program 
has ranged from approximately $23.7 to $29.3 million per year with 155 
eligible grant applications received and reviewed in the most recent 
competition. Of these applicants, 98 received grant awards in fiscal 
year 2022, and an additional 15 of these applicants ultimately received 
grant awards through funding down the slate in fiscal year 2023. Over 
the same period, the amount of funding for the FLAS Fellowships Program 
has remained stable at approximately $31.2 million per year, with 160 
eligible grant applications received and reviewed in the most recent 
competition. We awarded grants to 112 of these applications in fiscal 
year 2022.
    The number of applications for both programs has remained 
relatively steady across recent competitions, but the number of grant 
awards for the NRC Program has increased slightly after funding down 
the slate. The Department expects the number of applications and grant 
rewards to remain relatively the same in future years.
    The changes to the selection criteria require the Department to 
develop new technical review forms. These regulations also require the 
Department to update program guidance and technical assistance 
materials for applicants, peer reviewers, and grant recipients. The 
Department anticipates the costs associated with these activities to be 
minimal, because we already engage in an ongoing process to revise, 
update, and improve these materials for each competition for these 
programs.
    Similarly, these changes to the selection criteria have no effect 
on current grant recipients under both programs. The Department also 
believes these changes will have little net effect on applicants. 
Applicants already develop new applications for each competition in 
response to a notice inviting applications that may contain new 
competitive preference priorities or a new allocation of points for the 
existing selection criteria. The revised selection criteria refer to 
similar types of data as the current selection criteria. The Department 
foresees that the costs for applicants and grant recipients that result 
from the proposed changes to the selection criteria will be minimal.
    The Department foresees that current grant recipients under the 
FLAS Fellowships Program may incur minor costs associated with program 
administration due to the revised program regulations. Although the 
regulations do not make any major changes to the FLAS Fellowships 
Program, grant recipients will need to familiarize themselves with the 
new regulations and update any references to the regulations that 
appear in their documents developed to assist program administration, 
especially in documents distributed to students and current and 
prospective fellows. The cumulative net impact of the revised fellow 
eligibility criteria and the revised program selection criteria are 
expected to have minimal impact on the number of applications that 
recipient IHEs will need to process. The Department expects the 
anticipated costs of the new disclosure requirement for fellows who 
receive multiple Federal fellowships to be minimal. This situation is 
uncommon and IHEs will implement disclosure processes responsive to 
local conditions and practices.
    The benefits of amending these regulations include (1) clarifying 
statutory language, (2) redesigning the selection criteria to reduce 
redundancy to improve the application process, and (3) updating the 
current regulations to reflect current practices in program 
administration and relevant fields of education. We anticipate that the 
clarifications, reductions to the number of selection criteria, and 
adjustments to project administration requirements will reduce the 
burden on applicants and grant recipients for both the NRC Program and 
FLAS Fellowships Program.

Alternatives Considered

    The Department reviewed and assessed various alternatives to the 
proposed regulations. The Department considered maintaining current 
regulations and developing additional technical assistance and guidance 
to address emerging topics in modern

[[Page 68754]]

foreign language and area studies education, especially distance 
education. The Department also considered developing extensive new 
technical assistance and guidance to explain the differences that exist 
among similar sections of the regulations for both programs. The 
Department determined that revising the regulations was the most 
efficient option to decrease administrative burden and ensure that the 
programs fulfill their statutory purposes.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that the final regulations will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The small entities that would be affected by the proposed regulations 
are IHEs that would submit applications to the Department under this 
program.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines ``small 
institution'' using data on revenue, market dominance, tax filing 
status, governing body, and population. The majority of entities to 
which the Office of Postsecondary Education's (OPE) regulations apply 
are postsecondary institutions, however, which do not report such data 
to the Department. As a result, for purposes of these final 
regulations, the Department continues to define ``small entities'' by 
reference to enrollment, to allow meaningful comparison of regulatory 
impact across all types of higher education institutions. The 
enrollment standard for small less-than-two-year institutions (below 
associate degrees) is less than 750 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students 
and for small institutions of at least two but less-than-4-years, and 
4-year institutions, less than 1,000 FTE students.\15\ As a result of 
discussions with the SBA, this is an update from the standard used in 
some prior rules. Those prior rules applied an enrollment standard for 
a small two-year institution of less than 500 full-time-equivalent 
(FTE) students and for a small 4-year institution, less than 1,000 FTE 
students.\16\ The Department consulted with the Office of Advocacy for 
the SBA and the Office of Advocacy has approved the revised alternative 
standard. The Department continues to believe this approach most 
accurately reflects a common basis for determining size categories that 
is linked to the provision of educational services and that it captures 
a similar universe of small entities as the SBA's revenue standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In regulations prior to 2016, the Department categorized 
small businesses based on tax status. Those regulations defined 
``nonprofit organizations'' as ``small organizations'' if they were 
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of 
operation, or as ``small entities'' if they were institutions 
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. 
Those definitions resulted in the categorization of all private 
nonprofit organizations as small and no public institutions as 
small. Under the previous definition, proprietary institutions were 
considered small if they are independently owned and operated and 
not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue 
below $7,000,000. Using FY 2017 IPEDs finance data for proprietary 
institutions, 50 percent of 4-year and 90 percent of 2-year or less 
proprietary institutions would be considered small. By contrast, an 
enrollment-based definition applies the same metric to all types of 
institutions, allowing consistent comparison across all types.
    \16\ In those prior rules, at least two but less-than-four-years 
institutions were considered in the broader two-year category. In 
this iteration, after consulting with the Office of Advocacy for the 
SBA, we separate this group into its own category.

                          Table 1--Small Institutions Under Enrollment-Based Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Level                            Type                 Small           Total          Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-year................................  Public..................             328           1,182           27.75
2-year................................  Private.................             182             199           91.46
2-year................................  Proprietary.............           1,777           1,952           91.03
4-year................................  Public..................              56             747            7.50
4-year................................  Private.................             789           1,602           49.25
4-year................................  Proprietary.............             249             331           75.23
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................  ........................           3,381           6,013           56.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018-19 data reported to the Department.

    As the table indicates, these final regulations will affect IHEs 
that meet the definition of small entities. They will not have a 
significant economic impact on these entities, however, because they 
will not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary 
Federal supervision. The final regulations impose minimal requirements 
to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that the public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    Sections 656.21, 656.22, 656.23, and 657.21 of the regulations 
contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the 
Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for its 
review. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In 
these final regulations, we provide the control number assigned by OMB 
to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPRM and 
adopted in the final regulations.
    The information collection that is impacted by these regulatory 
changes is the current Application for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships 
Programs (1840-0807). This information collection includes application 
instructions and forms for the NRC Program (ALN Number 84.015A) and the 
FLAS Fellowships Program (ALN Number

[[Page 68755]]

84.015B), authorized under title VI of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1122).
    The NRC Program provides grants to IHEs or consortia of IHEs to 
establish, strengthen, and operate comprehensive and undergraduate 
foreign language and area or international studies centers. These 
centers serve as centers of excellence for world language training and 
teaching, research, and instruction in fields needed to provide full 
understanding of areas, regions, or countries where the languages are 
commonly used. The FLAS Fellowships Program awards allocations of 
fellowships, through IHEs or consortia of IHEs, to meritorious students 
enrolled in programs that offer instruction in world languages in 
combination with area studies, international studies, or the 
international aspects of professional studies.
    Together, these programs respond to the ongoing national need for 
individuals with expertise and competence in world languages and area 
or international studies; advance national security by developing a 
pipeline of highly proficient linguists and experts in critical world 
regions; and contribute to developing a globally competent workforce 
able to engage with a multilingual/multicultural clientele at home and 
abroad.
    Eligible IHEs use the information collection to submit applications 
to the Department to request funding in response to the competition 
announcement. After grant applications are submitted, the Department 
determines the budget and staff resources it needs to conduct the peer 
review of applications and post award activities. External review 
panels use the information to evaluate grant applications and to 
identify high-quality applications. When developing funding slates, 
Department program officials consider the evaluations from the expert 
review panels, in conjunction with the NRC and FLAS legislative 
purposes and any Administration priorities. Department program 
officials also use the collection to inform strategic planning; to 
establish goals, performance measures and objectives; to develop 
monitoring plans; or to align program assessment standards with 
Department performance goals and initiatives.
    Over many grant cycles, administering the NRC and FLAS grant 
competitions using the current selection criteria has been unwieldy and 
burdensome for both applicants and peer reviewers. The Secretary 
revised the selection criteria to clarify selection criteria, eliminate 
redundant criteria, reduce the burden on applicants and peer reviewers, 
and improve alignment with the statute, particularly with regard to 
comprehensive and undergraduate Centers. The Secretary reduced the 
comprehensive NRC selection criteria from 10 criteria with 27 sub-
criteria to six criteria with 23 sub-criteria; the undergraduate NRC 
selection criteria from 10 criteria with 26 sub-criteria to six 
criteria with 23 sub-criteria; and the FLAS selection criteria from 
nine criteria with 22 sub-criteria to six criteria with 22 sub-
criteria. The proposed criteria include some new criteria for the NRC 
Program, including a ``quality of existing academic programs'' 
criterion, and also for FLAS, including ``project design and 
rationale'' and ``project planning and budget'' criteria.
    ED's Office of Postsecondary Education, International and Foreign 
Language Education (OPE-IFLE) has used the information received for the 
current collection to develop technical assistance materials for 
grantees, such as program administration manuals and technical 
assistance webinars, to inform the performance reporting requirements 
for these programs, and to demonstrate the impact of these programs. 
Competitions for these grants occur once every four years. The data in 
the table is an estimate of the time it takes for respondents to 
complete official forms, develop the application narrative and budget, 
and submit completed applications through the Grants.gov system.
    The NRC application (1840-0807) is affected by the changes to the 
NRC selection criteria (Sec. Sec.  656.21, 656.22, and 656.23), which 
require changes on the application package and technical review forms. 
This information collection no longer addresses aspects of the FLAS 
program. The changes to the NRC selection criteria clarify 
interpretations of statutory language and redesign the selection 
criteria. The final regulations remove ambiguity and redundancy in the 
selection criteria and definitions of key terms, improve the 
application process, and align the administration of the programs with 
the developments in modern foreign languages and area studies 
education.
    The FLAS application (1840-0867) is affected by the changes to the 
FLAS selection criteria (Sec. Sec.  657.21), which require changes on 
the application package and technical review forms. This new 
information collection reflects the separation of the applications for 
the NRC and FLAS programs. The changes to the FLAS selection criteria 
clarify interpretations of statutory language and redesign the 
selection criteria. The regulations remove ambiguity and redundancy in 
the selection criteria and definitions of key terms, improve the 
application process, and align the administration of the programs with 
the developments in modern foreign languages and area studies 
education.
    Previously, both applications were combined into one information 
collection for the Application for the NRC and FLAS Fellowships 
Programs (1840-0807). These regulations necessitate fully separating 
the information collection into two distinct information collections. 
The NRC and FLAS Fellowships Programs' application had previously been 
estimated to have 27 burden hours. Based on a commenter's assertion 
that our previous calculations severely underestimated the burden hours 
and costs of this collection, the application now is estimated to have 
a burden of 420 hours. When multiplied by 165 respondents, this results 
in Total Annual Burden hours of 69,300. The Total Annual Costs for the 
application are determined to be $2,286,900 when the burden hours are 
multiplied by the commenter's recommended hourly wage of $33.
    The NRC Program and FLAS Fellowships Program compete only once 
every four years. The application packages are cleared with OMB once 
every three years. For every three-year clearance period, the 
competitions are run once. Because of the separation of the two 
information collections, the Total Annual Burden Hours and Total Annual 
Costs are halved, as demonstrated in the tables below. For both the NRC 
Program and the FLAS Fellowships Program, 420 hours to complete both 
applications is reduced to 210 hours each. When multiplied by 165 
respondents this yields Total Annual Burden Hours of 34,650 and Total 
Annual Costs of $1,143,450. Averaged over three years, the Total Annual 
Burden Hours are 11,550 and the Total Annual Costs are $381,150 for 
each program.

[[Page 68756]]



                                                                 NRC Program (1840-0807)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Estimated
                                                                      Number of     Number of      Average      respondent    Total annual  Total annual
                           Affected type                             respondents    responses   burden hours  average hourly  burden hours      costs
                                                                                                per response       wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions, private or non-profit...............................          165           165           210             $33        11,550      $381,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          FLAS Fellowships Program (1840-0867)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Estimated
                                                                      Number of     Number of      Average      respondent    Total annual  Total annual
                           Affected type                             respondents    responses   burden hours      average     burden hours      costs
                                                                                                per response    hourly wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions, private or non-profit...............................          165           165           210             $33        11,550      $381,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC application (1840-0807) is affected by the changes to the 
NRC selection criteria (Sec. Sec.  656.21, 656.22, and 656.23), which 
will require changes on the application package and technical review 
forms. The calculation of burden hours is not affected by the 
regulatory changes, but we agreed with a commenter's assertion that our 
previous calculations severely underestimated the burden hours and 
costs of this collection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Information       OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section            collection         estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  Sec.   656.21, 656.22,  These proposed        1840-0807. The
 and 656.23                    regulatory            number of
                               provisions would      respondents would
                               require changing      remain constant at
                               the application       165. The number of
                               package and           total burden hours
                               technical review      for the application
                               forms to reflect      is 11,550 when
                               the modified          averaged over three
                               selection criteria    years. The averaged
                               for this program.     total cost is
                                                     $381,150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FLAS application (1840-0867) is affected by the changes to the 
FLAS selection criteria (Sec.  657.21), which require changes to the 
application package and technical review forms. The calculation of 
burden hours is not affected by the regulatory changes, but by the 
commenter's assertion that our previous calculations severely 
underestimated the burden hours and costs of this collection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Information       OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section            collection         estimated burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   657.21...............  These regulatory      1840-0867. The
                               changes require       number of
                               changing the          respondents will
                               application package   remain constant at
                               and technical         165. The number of
                               review forms to       total burden hours
                               reflect the           for the application
                               modified selection    is 11,550 when
                               criteria for this     averaged over three
                               program.              years. The averaged
                                                     total cost is
                                                     $381,150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for each of 
these programs to reflect these changes to the information collection 
requirements. We invited the public to comment on the ICR but did not 
receive any comments other than the comment addressed above.
    The collection of information contained in these regulations is 
being submitted to OMB for clearance simultaneously with this Final 
Rule under the OMB control numbers 1840-0807 and 1840-0867.

Intergovernmental Review

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

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The final regulations do not have federalism implications.
    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will 
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich 
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, 
braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible 
format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the 
Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe 
Acrobat Reader, which is available at no cost to the user at the site.
    You may also access Department documents published in the Federal 
Register by using the article search feature at 
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,

[[Page 68757]]

Grant programs--education, Scholarships and fellowships.

34 CFR Part 656

    Colleges and universities, Cultural exchange programs, Educational 
research, Educational study programs, Grant programs--education, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

34 CFR Part 657

    Colleges and universities, Cultural exchange programs, Educational 
study programs, Grant programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Scholarships and fellowships.

Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of 
Education amends parts 655, 656, and 657 of title 34 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 655--INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 655 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1121-1130b and 1132-1132-7, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  655.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  655.1  Which programs do these regulations govern?

* * * * *
    (a) The National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and 
Area Studies and the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program (section 602 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended);
* * * * *


Sec.  655.3  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  655.3 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (a) and (d).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (c) as paragraphs (a) through 
(b).

0
4. Revise Sec.  655.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  655.4  What definitions apply to the International Education 
Programs?

    (a) The following terms used in this part and 34 CFR parts 656, 
657, 658, 660, 661, and 669 are defined in 2 CFR part 200, subpart A, 
34 CFR 77.1, 34 CFR 600.2, or 34 CFR 668.2:
    (1) Academic engagement.
    (2) Acquisition.
    (3) Applicant.
    (4) Application.
    (5) Award.
    (6) Budget.
    (7) Clock hour.
    (8) Contract.
    (9) Correspondence course.
    (10) Credit hour.
    (11) Distance education.
    (12) Educational program.
    (13) EDGAR.
    (14) Enrolled.
    (15) Equipment.
    (16) Facilities.
    (17) Fiscal year.
    (18) Full-time student.
    (19) Graduate or professional student.
    (20) Grant.
    (21) Grantee.
    (22) Grant period.
    (23) Half-time student.
    (24) Local educational agency.
    (25) National level.
    (26) Nonprofit.
    (27) Project.
    (28) Project period.
    (29) Private.
    (30) Public.
    (31) Regular student.
    (32) Secretary.
    (33) State educational agency.
    (34) Supplies.
    (35) Undergraduate student.
    (b) The following definitions apply to International Education 
Programs:
    Area studies means a program of comprehensive study of the aspects 
of a world area's society or societies, including study of history, 
culture, economy, politics, international relations, and languages.
    Areas of national need means the various needs in the government, 
education, business, and nonprofit sectors for expertise in foreign 
language, area, and international studies identified by the Secretary 
as significant for maintaining or improving the security, stability, 
and economic vitality of the United States.
    Consortium of institutions of higher education means a group of 
institutions of higher education that have entered into a cooperative 
arrangement for the purpose of carrying out a common objective, or a 
public or private nonprofit agency, organization, or institution 
designated or created by a group of institutions of higher education 
for the purpose of carrying out a common objective on their behalf.
    Consultation on areas of national need means the process that 
allows the head officials of a wide range of Federal agencies to 
consult with the Secretary and provide recommendations regarding 
national needs for expertise in foreign languages and world areas that 
the Secretary may take into account when identifying areas of national 
need.
    Diverse perspectives means a variety of viewpoints relevant to 
understanding global or international issues in context, especially 
those derived from scholarly research or sustained professional 
activities and community engagement abroad, and relevant to building 
multifaceted knowledge and expertise in area studies, international 
studies, and the international aspects of professional studies, 
including issues related to world regions, foreign languages, and 
international affairs, among stakeholders.
    Educational program abroad means a program of study, internship, or 
service learning outside the United States that is part of a foreign 
language or other international curriculum at the undergraduate or 
graduate education level.
    Institution of higher education means an institution that meets the 
definition in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended, as well as an institution that meets the requirements of 
section 101(a) except that--
    (1) It is not located in the United States; and
    (2) It applies for assistance under title VI of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended, in consortia with institutions that 
meet the definition in section 101(a).
    Intensive language instruction means instruction of at least five 
clock hours per week during the academic year or the equivalent of a 
full academic year of language instruction during the summer.

0
5. Add Sec.  655.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  655.5  What are the purposes of the International Educational 
Programs?

    (a) Each of the programs authorized by part A of title VI of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contributes to at least one, 
but not necessarily all, of the following purposes:
    (1) Provision of support for centers, programs, and fellowships in 
institutions of higher education in the United States for producing 
increased numbers of trained personnel and research in foreign 
languages, area studies, and other international studies.
    (2) Development of a pool of international experts to meet national 
needs.
    (3) Development and validation of specialized materials and 
techniques for foreign language acquisition and fluency, emphasizing 
(but not limited to) the less commonly taught languages.
    (4) Promotion of access to research and training overseas, 
including through linkages with overseas institutions.
    (5) Advancement of the internationalization of a variety of

[[Page 68758]]

disciplines throughout undergraduate and graduate education.
    (6) Support for cooperative efforts promoting access to and the 
dissemination of international and foreign language knowledge, teaching 
materials, and research, throughout education, government, business, 
civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, through the use of 
advanced technologies.
    (b) The regulations in this part govern the following programs that 
are authorized by part A of title VI of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended:
    (1) The National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and 
Area Studies and the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program.
    (2) The Language Resource Centers Program.
    (3) The Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 
Program.
    (4) The International Research and Studies Program.
    (c) The following activities authorized by part A of title VI of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contribute to the 
coordination of the programs of the Federal Government in the areas of 
foreign language, area studies, and other international studies, 
including professional international affairs education and research:
    (1) The consultation on areas of national need.
    (2) The periodic survey of fellows who have participated in the 
Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program to determine 
postgraduate employment, education, or training.
    (d) Each of the programs authorized by part B of title VI of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, contributes to at least one, 
but not necessarily all, of the following purposes:
    (1) Increase and promotion of the Nation's capacity for 
international understanding and economic enterprise through the 
provision of suitable international education and training for business 
personnel in various stages of professional development; and develop a 
pool of international experts to meet national needs.
    (2) Promotion of institutional and noninstitutional educational and 
training activities that will contribute to the ability of United 
States business to prosper in an international economy.
    (e) The regulations in this part govern the following programs that 
are authorized by part B of title VI of the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended: The Business and International Education Program.

0
6. Revise Sec.  655.30 to read as follows:


Sec.  655.30  How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

    The Secretary evaluates applications for International Education 
Programs using the criteria described in one or more of the following:
    (a) The general criteria in Sec.  655.31.
    (b) The specific criteria, as applicable, in subpart C of 34 CFR 
parts 656 and 657, or subpart D of 34 CFR parts 658, 660, 661, and 669.

0
7. Amend Sec.  655.31 by revising paragraph (e)(2)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  655.31  What general selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Facilities (including but not limited to language laboratories, 
museums, and libraries) that the applicant plans to use are adequate; 
and
* * * * *

0
8. Effective August 15, 2025, revise part 656 to read as follows:

PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE 
AND AREA STUDIES

Sec.
Subpart A--General
656.1 What is the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program?
656.2 What entities are eligible to receive a grant?
656.3 What defines a comprehensive or undergraduate National 
Resource Center?
656.4 For what special purposes may a Center receive an additional 
grant under this part?
656.5 What regulations apply to this program?
656.6 What definitions apply to this program?
656.7 Severability.
Subpart B--How Does an Eligible Institution Apply for a Grant?
656.10 How does an institution submit a grant application?
656.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant 
include in an application?
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
656.20 How does the Secretary select applications for funding?
656.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for a comprehensive Center?
656.22 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for an undergraduate Center?
656.23 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
application for an additional special purpose grant to a Center?
656.24 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
Subpart D--What conditions must be met by a grantee?
656.30 What activities and costs are allowable?

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121, 1122, 1127, and 1132 unless otherwise 
noted.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  656.1  What is the purpose of the National Resource Centers 
Program?

    (a) Under the National Resource Centers Program for Foreign 
Language and Areas Studies (National Resource Centers Program), the 
Secretary awards grants to institutions of higher education and 
consortia of institutions to establish, strengthen, and operate 
comprehensive and undergraduate Centers that act cooperatively as 
national resources for--
    (1) Teaching of modern foreign languages, especially less commonly 
taught languages;
    (2) Instruction in fields of study needed to provide full 
understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which such languages 
are commonly used;
    (3) Research and training in international studies and the 
international and foreign language aspects of professional and other 
fields of study; and
    (4) Instruction and research on issues in world affairs that 
concern one or more countries.
    (b) Through the activities described in paragraph (a) of this 
section, the National Resource Centers Program contributes to the 
purposes of the programs authorized by part A of title VI of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended, listed in Sec.  655.5(a).


Sec.  656.2  What entities are eligible to receive a grant?

    (a) An institution of higher education or a consortium of 
institutions of higher education is eligible to receive a grant under 
this part as either a comprehensive Center or undergraduate Center.
    (b) An institution of higher education or a consortium of 
institutions of higher education that is a current recipient of a grant 
under this part as either a comprehensive Center or undergraduate 
Center is eligible to receive an additional grant under this part for 
special purposes related to library collections, outreach, and summer 
institutes, as described in Sec.  656.4.


Sec.  656.3  What defines a comprehensive or undergraduate National 
Resource Center?

    (a) A Center's area of focus for research, teaching, training, 
instruction, and project activities must be aligned with both of the 
following requirements:

[[Page 68759]]

    (1) The area of focus must be a geographic world area or a 
geographically designated region that spans multiple world areas.
    (2) Research, teaching, training, and instruction in specific 
languages, countries, regions, societies, or other units of analysis 
related to the area of focus described in this paragraph (1) must be 
conducted at the institution.
    (b) A comprehensive Center is an administrative unit of an eligible 
institution of higher education that independently or through 
collaboration with other administrative units--
    (1) Provides intensive modern foreign language training, especially 
for less commonly taught languages, in the Center's area of focus;
    (2) Contributes significantly to the national interest in advanced 
research and scholarship in the Center's area of focus;
    (3) Employs a critical mass of scholars in diverse disciplines 
related to the Center's area of focus;
    (4) Maintains important library collections related to the Center's 
area of focus;
    (5) Makes training available in language and area studies in the 
Center's area of focus, to graduate, postgraduate, and undergraduate 
students;
    (6) Addresses national needs for modern foreign language and area 
studies expertise and knowledge, including through, but not limited to, 
the placement of students into postgraduate employment, education, or 
training in areas of need; and
    (7) Disseminates information about the Center's area of focus to 
audiences in the United States.
    (c) An undergraduate Center independently or through collaboration 
with other administrative units--
    (1) Teaches modern foreign languages, especially less commonly 
taught languages, related to the Center's area of focus;
    (2) Prepares undergraduate students to matriculate into advanced 
modern foreign language and area studies programs and professional 
school programs;
    (3) Incorporates substantial content related to the Center's area 
of focus into baccalaureate degree programs;
    (4) Engages in research and curriculum development designed to 
broaden knowledge and expertise related to the Center's area of focus;
    (5) Employs faculty with strong language, area, and international 
studies credentials related to the Center's area of focus;
    (6) Maintains library holdings sufficient to support high-quality 
training and instruction in the Center's area of focus for 
undergraduate students;
    (7) Makes training related to the Center's area of focus available 
predominantly to undergraduate students in support of the objectives of 
a undergraduate education;
    (8) Addresses national needs for language and area studies 
expertise and knowledge, including through, but not limited to, the 
placement of undergraduate students into postgraduate employment, 
education, or training in areas of need; and
    (9) Disseminates information about the Center's area of focus to 
audiences in the United States.


Sec.  656.4  For what special purposes may a Center receive an 
additional grant under this part?

    The Secretary may make additional special purpose grants to Centers 
for one or more of the following purposes:
    (a) Linkage or outreach between foreign language, area studies, and 
other international fields and professional schools and colleges.
    (b) Linkage or outreach with 2- and 4-year colleges and 
universities.
    (c) Linkage or outreach between or among--
    (1) Postsecondary programs or departments in foreign language, area 
studies, or other international fields; and
    (2) State educational agencies or local educational agencies.
    (d) Partnerships or programs of linkage and outreach with 
departments or agencies of Federal and State governments, including 
Federal or State scholarship programs for students in related areas.
    (e) Linkage or outreach with the news media, business, 
professional, or trade associations.
    (f) Summer institutes in area studies, foreign language, or other 
international fields designed to carry out the activities in paragraphs 
(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section.
    (g) Maintenance of important library collections.


Sec.  656.5  What regulations apply to this program?

    The following regulations apply to this program:
    (a) The regulations in 34 CFR part 655.
    (b) The regulations in this part 656.


Sec.  656.6  What definitions apply to this program?

    The following definitions apply to this part:
    (a) The definitions in 34 CFR part 655.
    (b) The following definitions, unless otherwise specified:
    Critical mass of scholars means a concentration of modern foreign 
language and area studies faculty, researchers, and other similar 
personnel associated with a Center who collectively make significant 
contributions in a field of area studies because of their expertise and 
are distinguished by their training in many different academic 
disciplines in addition to their active engagement in interdisciplinary 
initiatives related to the Center's area of focus. The following are 
examples of other factors that may be considered in determining whether 
there is a critical mass of scholars:
    (i) Whether instruction in many foreign languages is offered.
    (ii) Whether specialized area studies or language instruction is 
regularly offered.
    (iii) The number of graduate student research projects 
(dissertations, theses, or equivalents) supervised.
    (iv) The degree of collaboration with international partners.
    (v) Participation in professional activities or consultations with 
partners outside academia.
    (vi) Professional awards and honors.
    (vii) Roles in professional associations.
    (viii) Activities funded by external grants.
    (ix) The number of scholars relative to all similarly qualified 
individuals in the United States.
    Institution means an institution of higher education, as defined in 
34 CFR part 655. References to an institution include all institutions 
of higher education that operate as a consortium under this part.
    National Resource Center (Center) means an administrative unit 
within an institution of higher education that is a grantee under this 
part that coordinates educational initiatives related to an area of 
focus as described in Sec.  656.3(a) at that institution or for a 
consortium of institutions through direct access to faculty, staff, 
administrators, students, library collections and other research 
collections, and other educational resources that support research, 
training, and instruction in various academic disciplines, professional 
fields, and languages.


Sec.  656.7  Severability.

    If any provision of this part or its application to any person, 
act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the 
application of its provisions to any other person, act, or practice 
will not be affected thereby.

[[Page 68760]]

Subpart B--How Does an Eligible Institution Apply for a Grant?


Sec.  656.10  How does an institution submit a grant application?

    The application notice published in the Federal Register explains 
how to apply for a new grant under this part.


Sec.  656.11  What assurances and other information must an applicant 
include in an application?

    (a) Each institution of higher education, including each member of 
a consortium, applying for a grant under this part must provide all of 
the following:
    (1) An explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will 
reflect diverse perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range 
of views and generate debate on world regions and international 
affairs.
    (2) A description of how the applicant will encourage government 
service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary, as 
well as in areas of need in the education, business, and nonprofit 
sectors.
    (b) An applicant must submit an Applicant Profile Form, as 
described in the application package.
    (c) An applicant must submit a description of the applicant's 
policy regarding non-discriminatory hiring practices.
    (d) An applicant must submit a description of the applicant's 
travel policies, if such policies exist, or a statement that such 
policies do not exist.
    (e) Each consortium applying for an award under this part must 
submit a group agreement (consortium agreement) that addresses the 
required elements of 34 CFR 75.128 and describes a rationale for the 
formation of the consortium.

Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?


Sec.  656.20  How does the Secretary select applications for funding?

    (a) The Secretary evaluates an application for a comprehensive 
Center under the criteria contained in Sec.  656.21, and for an 
undergraduate Center under the criteria contained in Sec.  656.22. The 
Secretary evaluates applications for additional special purpose grants 
to Centers under the criteria contained in Sec.  656.23.
    (b) The Secretary informs applicants of the maximum possible score 
for each criterion in the application package or in a notice published 
in the Federal Register.
    (c) The Secretary makes grant awards using a peer review process. 
Applications that share the same or similar area of focus, as declared 
by each applicant under Sec.  656.3(a), are grouped together for 
purposes of review. Each application is reviewed for excellence based 
on the applicable criteria referenced in paragraph (a) of this section. 
Applications are then ranked within each group that shares the same or 
similar area of focus.
    (d) The Secretary may determine a minimum total score required to 
demonstrate a sufficient degree of excellence to qualify for a grant 
under this part.
    (e) If insufficient money is available to fund all applications 
demonstrating a sufficient degree of excellence as determined under 
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section, the Secretary considers 
the degree to which priorities derived from the consultation on areas 
of national need or established under the provisions of Sec.  656.24 
and relating to specific countries, world areas, or languages are 
served when selecting applications for funding and determining the 
amount of a grant.


Sec.  656.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use to 
evaluate an application for a comprehensive Center?

    The Secretary evaluates an application for a comprehensive Center 
on the basis of the criteria in this section.
    (a) Center scope, personnel, and operations. The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed Center's area of focus meets 
the requirements in Sec.  656.3(a).
    (2) The extent to which the project director and other individuals, 
including relevant staff and faculty, are qualified to administer the 
proposed Center and oversee the implementation of project activities, 
including the degree to which they engage in ongoing professional 
development activities relevant to their roles at the proposed Center.
    (3) The adequacy of governance and oversight arrangements for the 
proposed Center, including the extent to which faculty from a variety 
of academic units participate in administration and oversee outreach 
activities, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium 
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
    (4) The extent to which the institution provides or will provide 
financial, administrative, and other support for the operation of the 
proposed Center at a level sufficient to enable the administration of 
the proposed project and coordination of educational initiatives in the 
proposed Center's area of focus.
    (b) Quality of existing academic programs. The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the institution makes high-quality 
training, especially integrated interdisciplinary training in modern 
foreign languages and area studies, appropriate to the applicant's area 
of focus, available in the curricula for graduate, professional, and 
undergraduate students in a wide variety of educational programs.
    (2) The extent to which the institution routinely provides language 
instruction, including intensive language instruction, relevant to the 
applicant's area of focus at multiple levels, as well as the degree to 
which these offerings represent distinctive commitments to depth or 
breadth.
    (3) The extent to which qualified experts at the institution 
provide modern foreign language instruction in the applicant's area of 
focus, as well as the degree to which this instruction utilizes stated 
performance goals for functional foreign language use and the degree to 
which stated performance goals are met or are likely to be met by 
students.
    (4) The extent to which the institution employs a critical mass of 
scholars in the applicant's area of focus, including the degree to 
which the institution employs enough qualified tenured and tenure-track 
faculty with teaching and advising responsibilities to enable the 
applicant to carry out interdisciplinary instructional and training 
programs supported by sufficient depth and breadth of course offerings 
in the applicant's area of focus.
    (c) Impact of existing activities and resources. The Secretary 
reviews each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant, affiliated faculty, and 
institutional partners contribute significantly to the national 
interest in advanced research and scholarship related to the 
applicant's area of focus.
    (2) The extent to which the institution's library holdings (print 
and non-print, physical and digital, English and foreign language) and 
other research collections are important library collections in the 
applicant's area of focus that support advanced training and research, 
including the degree to which holdings are made available to 
researchers throughout the United States, the degree to which 
collections include unique or rare resources, and the degree to which 
the collections are managed by experts in the applicant's

[[Page 68761]]

area of focus with appropriate professional training.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant, including affiliated faculty 
and institutional partners, generates information about the applicant's 
area of focus, disseminates this information to various audiences in 
the United States, and effectively engages those audiences through 
sustained outreach activities at the regional and national levels that 
respond to the diverse needs of, for example, elementary and secondary 
schools, State educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, 
nonprofit organizations, businesses, the media, and Federal agencies.
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's activities address national 
needs related to language and area studies expertise and knowledge, 
including, but not limited to, the applicant's record in placing 
students into post-graduate employment, education, or training in areas 
of national need related to language and area studies knowledge.
    (d) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the intended outcomes of the proposed 
project are clearly specified, are possible to achieve within the 
project period, and address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities related to the Center's area of focus, 
the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program described in Sec.  
656.1, and the comprehensive type of Center described in Sec.  
656.3(b).
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to 
contribute to meeting national needs related to language and area 
studies expertise and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by the 
proposed project's intended outcomes and other stated efforts related 
to increasing the number of students that go into post-graduate 
employment, education, or training in areas of national need.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build 
academic and/or institutional capacity in the Center's area of focus 
and sustain results beyond the project period.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project will reflect diverse 
perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range of views and 
generate debate on world regions and international affairs.
    (e) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately 
described relative to their contribution to the proposed project's 
intended outcomes.
    (2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high 
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of 
the National Resource Centers program described in Sec.  656.1, the 
comprehensive type of Center described in Sec.  656.3(b), and the 
proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and 
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate 
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project 
period.
    (4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget 
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, 
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
    (f) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving the proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator(s).


Sec.  656.22  What selection criteria does the Secretary use to 
evaluate an application for an undergraduate Center?

    The Secretary evaluates an application for an undergraduate Center 
on the basis of the criteria in this section.
    (a) Center scope, personnel, and operations. The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed Center's area of focus meets 
the requirements in Sec.  656.3(a).
    (2) The extent to which the project director and other individuals, 
including relevant staff and faculty, are qualified to administer the 
proposed Center and oversee the implementation of project activities, 
including the degree to which they engage in ongoing professional 
development activities relevant to their roles at the proposed Center.
    (3) The adequacy of governance and oversight arrangements for the 
proposed Center, including the extent to which faculty from a variety 
of academic units participate in administration and oversee outreach 
activities, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium 
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
    (4) The extent to which the institution provides or will provide 
financial, administrative, and other support for the operation of the 
proposed Center at a level sufficient to enable the administration of 
the proposed project and coordination of educational initiatives in the 
proposed Center's area of focus.
    (b) Quality of existing academic programs. The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the institution makes high-quality 
training, especially integrated interdisciplinary training in modern 
foreign language and area or international studies, appropriate to the 
applicant's area of focus, available in educational programs for 
undergraduate students.
    (2) The extent to which the institution routinely provides language 
instruction relevant to the applicant's area of focus, as well as the 
degree to which these offerings represent distinctive commitments to 
depth or breadth of coverage.
    (3) The extent to which qualified experts at the institution 
provide modern foreign language instruction in the applicant's area of 
focus, as well as the degree to which this instruction utilizes stated 
performance goals for functional foreign language use and the degree to 
which stated performance goals are met or are likely to be met by 
undergraduate students.
    (4) The extent to which the institution employs faculty with strong 
language, area, and international studies credentials related to the 
applicant's area of focus, including the degree to which the 
institution employs enough qualified tenured and tenure-track faculty 
with teaching and advising responsibilities, to enable the applicant to 
carry out instructional and training programs supported by sufficient 
depth and breadth of course offerings for undergraduate students in the 
applicant's area of focus.
    (c) Impact of existing activities and resources. The Secretary 
reviews each application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant would contribute to the 
formation of a diverse network of undergraduate Centers through the 
training of undergraduate students who matriculate into advanced 
language and area studies programs and professional school programs 
related to the applicant's area of focus, especially through, but not 
limited to, innovative curriculum design, linkages with other 
institutions of higher education or organizations, requirements for 
student research or study abroad, support for relevant

[[Page 68762]]

internship or other co-curricular opportunities, or specialized 
advising.
    (2) The extent to which the institution's library holdings (print 
and non-print, physical and digital, English and foreign language), 
other research collections, and staffing support high-quality 
undergraduate training in the applicant's area of focus through the 
provision of basic reference works, journals, and works in translation 
but do not constitute an important library collection in the 
applicant's area of focus.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant, including affiliated faculty 
and institutional partners, generates information about the applicant's 
area of focus, disseminates this information to various audiences in 
the United States, and effectively engages those audiences through 
sustained outreach activities at the regional and national levels that 
respond to the diverse needs of, for example, elementary and secondary 
schools, State educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, 
nonprofit organizations, businesses, the media, and Federal agencies.
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's activities address national 
needs related to language and area studies expertise and knowledge, 
including, but not limited to, the applicant's record in placing 
undergraduate students into post-graduate employment, education, or 
training in areas of national need related to language and area studies 
knowledge, including into education and training at a variety of other 
institutions.
    (d) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the intended outcomes of the proposed 
project are clearly specified, possible to achieve within the project 
period, and address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities related to the Center's area of focus, 
the purpose of the National Resource Centers program described in Sec.  
656.1, and the undergraduate type of Center described in Sec.  
656.3(c).
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to 
contribute to meeting national needs related to language and area 
studies expertise and knowledge, including, but not limited to, by the 
proposed project's intended outcomes and other stated efforts related 
to increasing the number of undergraduate students that go into post-
graduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build 
academic and/or institutional capacity in the Center's area of focus 
and sustain results beyond the project period.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project will reflect diverse 
perspectives, as defined in part 655, and a wide range of views and 
generate debate on world regions and international affairs.
    (e) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately 
described relative to their contribution to the proposed project's 
intended outcomes.
    (2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high 
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of 
the National Resource Centers program as described in Sec.  656.1, the 
undergraduate type of Center described in Sec.  656.3(c), and the 
proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and 
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate 
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project 
period.
    (4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget 
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, 
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
    (f) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving the proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator(s).


Sec.  656.23  What selection criteria does the Secretary use to 
evaluate an application for an additional special purpose grant to a 
Center?

    The Secretary evaluates an application for an additional special 
purpose grant for a Center on the basis of one or more of the criteria 
in this section.
    (a) Project design and rationale. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the project aligns with the Center's 
approved area of focus under Sec.  656.3(a) and proposes at least one 
type of activity described in Sec.  656.4(a)-(g).
    (2) The extent to which the intended outcomes of the proposed 
project are clearly specified, possible to achieve within the project 
period, and address specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities related to the Center's area of focus, 
the purpose of the National Resource Centers program described in Sec.  
656.1, and the appropriate type of Center described in Sec.  656.3(b)-
(c).
    (3) The extent to which the project is likely to contribute to 
meeting national needs related to language and area studies knowledge 
or expertise.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build 
academic and/or institutional capacity and sustain results beyond the 
project period.
    (b) Project planning and budget. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which all proposed activities are adequately 
described relative to their contribution to the proposed project's 
intended outcomes.
    (2) The extent to which all proposed activities are of high 
quality, including the degree to which they align with the purpose of 
the National Resource Centers program as described in Sec.  656.1, the 
appropriate type of Center described in Sec.  656.3(b)-(c), and the 
proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed timeline of activities and 
other application materials, such as letters of support, demonstrate 
the feasibility of completing proposed activities during the project 
period.
    (4) The extent to which all costs are itemized in the budget 
narrative and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, 
design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
    (c) Key personnel and project operations. The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine one or both of the following:
    (1) The extent to which project personnel are qualified to oversee 
and carry out the proposed project.
    (2) The adequacy of staffing, governance, and oversight 
arrangements, and, for a consortium, the extent to which the consortium 
agreement demonstrates commitment to a common objective.
    (d) Quality of project evaluation. The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine one or more of the following:
    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the proposed project.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving the proposed project's intended outcomes.

[[Page 68763]]

    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator(s).


Sec.  656.24  What priorities may the Secretary establish?

    (a) The Secretary may select one or more of the following funding 
priorities:
    (1) Specific world areas, countries, or societies.
    (2) Instruction of specific modern foreign languages.
    (3) Modern foreign language instruction at a specific level or 
degree of intensity, such as intermediate or advanced language 
instruction or instruction at an intensity of 10 clock hours or more 
per week.
    (4) Specific areas of national need for expertise in foreign 
languages and world areas derived from the consultation with Federal 
agencies on areas of national need.
    (5) Specific area of focus, such as a world area or a portion of a 
world area (e.g., a single country or society) in addition to a 
specific topic (e.g., economic cooperation, cybersecurity, energy, 
climate change, translation, genocide prevention, or migration).
    (b) The Secretary may select one or more of the activities listed 
in Sec.  656.4 or Sec.  656.30(a) as a funding priority.
    (c) The Secretary announces any priorities in the application 
notice published in the Federal Register.

Subpart D--What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?


Sec.  656.30  What activities and costs are allowable?

    (a) Allowable activities and costs. Except as provided under 
paragraph (b) of this section, a grant awarded under this part may be 
used to pay all or part of the cost of establishing, strengthening, or 
operating a comprehensive or undergraduate Center including, but not 
limited to, the cost of the following:
    (1) Supporting instructors of the less commonly taught languages 
related to the Center's area of focus.
    (2) Creating, expanding, or improving opportunities for the formal 
study of the less commonly taught languages related to the Center's 
area of focus.
    (3) Creating or operating summer institutes in the United States or 
abroad designed to provide modern foreign language and area training in 
the Center's area of focus.
    (4) Cooperating with other Centers to conduct projects that address 
issues of world, regional, cross-regional, international, or global 
importance.
    (5) Bringing visiting scholars and faculty to the Center to teach, 
conduct research, or participate in conferences or workshops.
    (6) Disseminating information about the Center's area of focus to 
various audiences in the United States through domestic outreach 
activities involving, for example, elementary and secondary schools, 
postsecondary institutions, businesses, and the media.
    (7) Funding library acquisitions, the maintenance of library 
collections, or efforts to enhance access to library collections 
related to the Center's area of focus.
    (8) Establishing and maintaining linkages with overseas 
institutions of higher education, alumni, and other organizations that 
may contribute to the teaching and research of the Center's area of 
focus.
    (9) Creating, obtaining, modifying, or improving access to teaching 
and research materials related to the Center's area of focus.
    (10) Creating, expanding, or improving activities or teaching 
materials that are intended to increase modern foreign language 
proficiency related to the Center's area of focus among students in the 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
    (11) Conducting projects that encourage and prepare students to 
seek employment relevant to the Center's area of focus in areas of 
national need.
    (12) Planning or developing curriculum related to the Center's area 
of focus.
    (13) Engaging in professional development of the Center's faculty 
and staff.
    (14) Funding salaries and travel for faculty and staff related to 
the Center's area of focus.
    (b) Limitations. The following are limitations on allowable 
activities and costs:
    (1) Equipment costs exceeding 10 percent of the grant are not 
allowable.
    (2) Undergraduate student travel is only allowable if grantees have 
received prior approval by the Secretary for the associated costs and 
the travel is made in conjunction with a formal program of supervised 
study in the Center's area of focus.
    (3) Grant funds may not be used to supplant funds normally used by 
grantees for purposes of this part.
    (4) The following limitations on compensation paid to personnel 
apply to each award under this part:
    (i) Project director. (A) Personnel costs and other related costs, 
including the cost of fringe benefits, associated with compensation for 
the project director are not allowable if such compensation only 
reflects the administrative tasks ordinarily associated with the role.
    (B) Personnel costs and other related costs, including the cost of 
fringe benefits, associated with compensation for the project director 
are allowable with the Secretary's prior approval if such compensation 
is directly tied to the implementation of an approved project activity 
that requires the project director's expertise.
    (ii) Instructors of less commonly taught languages. Personnel costs 
and other costs, including the cost of fringe benefits, related to the 
compensation of individuals directly engaged in the instruction of a 
less commonly taught language are allowable up to 100 percent of the 
actual costs associated with approved project activities.
    (iii) Other project personnel. Personnel costs and other costs, 
including the costs of fringe benefits, related to the compensation of 
project personnel who are not described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) 
of this section are allowable up to 50 percent of the costs for a full-
time equivalent position.
    (5) Costs for international travel are only allowable if a Center 
has obtained prior approval from the Secretary.
    (6) Activities must be relevant to the Center's area of focus and 
the type of Center (comprehensive or undergraduate).
    (7) An undergraduate Center's project and related activities must 
predominantly benefit the instruction and training of undergraduate 
students.

0
9. Effective August 15, 2025, revise part 657 to read as follows:

PART 657--FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM

Sec.
Subpart A--General
657.1 What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program?
657.2 What entities are eligible to receive an allocation of 
fellowships?
657.3 What are the instructional and administrative requirements for 
an allocation of fellowships?
657.4 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
657.5 What is the amount of a fellowship?
657.6 What regulations apply to this program?
657.7 What definitions apply to this program?
657.8 Severability.
Subpart B--How Does an Eligible Institution or Student Apply?
657.10 How does an institution submit a grant application?
657.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant 
institution include in an application?

[[Page 68764]]

657.12 How does a student apply for a fellowship?
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
657.20 How does the Secretary select institutional applications for 
funding?
657.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate an 
institutional application for an allocation of fellowships?
657.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
Subpart D--What Conditions Must Be Met by Institutional Grantees and 
Fellows?
657.30 What are the limitations on fellowships?
657.31 What is the payment procedure for fellowships?
657.32 Under what circumstances must an institution terminate a 
fellowship?
657.33 What are the reporting requirements for grantee institutions 
and for individual fellows who receive funds under this program?
657.34 What are an institution's responsibilities after the award of 
a grant for administering fellowship funding?

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1122 and 1132-3, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  657.1  What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program?

    (a) Under the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 
Program, the Secretary provides allocations of fellowships to Centers 
and other administrative units at eligible institutions of higher 
education that award the fellowships on a competitive basis to 
undergraduate or graduate students who are undergoing advanced training 
in modern foreign languages and area studies.
    (b) The Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program 
contributes to the purposes of the programs authorized by part A of 
title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, listed in 
Sec.  655.5(a), especially the development of a pool of international 
experts to meet national needs.


Sec.  657.2  What entities are eligible to receive an allocation of 
fellowships?

    The Secretary awards an allocation of fellowships (grant) to an 
institution of higher education or to a consortium of institutions of 
higher education.


Sec.  657.3  What are the instructional and administrative requirements 
for an allocation of fellowships?

    (a) An allocation of fellowships must support area studies and 
language instruction that aligns with all of the following 
requirements:
    (1) A geographic world area or a geographically designated region 
that spans multiple world areas and serves as the focus of research, 
teaching, training, and instruction.
    (2) Languages specific to the geographic area of focus.
    (3) Existing programs or proposed instructional programs that will 
be developed and implemented during the grant period.
    (b) An allocation of fellowships must be administered according to 
the institution's written plan for distributing fellowships and 
allowances to eligible fellows for training and instruction during the 
academic year or summer, provided that--
    (1) The fellowship types are described in the budget narrative of 
an application selected for funding under this part; or
    (2) The Secretary has approved any proposed changes to an approved 
Center's or Program's plan.


Sec.  657.4  Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?

    A student must satisfy the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) 
of this section during the fellowship period to be eligible to receive 
a fellowship from an approved Center or Program, and a student 
receiving an academic year fellowship must additionally satisfy the 
criteria in paragraph (f) of this section to be eligible:
    (a) The student is a--
    (1) Citizen or national of the United States; or
    (2) Permanent resident of the United States.
    (b) The student is accepted for enrollment, is enrolled, or will 
continue to be enrolled in the institution receiving an allocation of 
fellowships.
    (c) The student demonstrates--
    (1) Commitment to the study of a world area relevant to the 
allocation of fellowships; and
    (2) Potential for high academic achievement based on grade point 
average, class ranking, or similar measures that the institution may 
determine.
    (d) The student is engaged in modern foreign language training or 
instruction in a language--
    (1) That is relevant to the student's educational program, as 
described in paragraph (c), as well as the allocation of fellowships; 
and
    (2) For which the institution or program has developed or is 
developing performance goals for foreign language use, and in the case 
of summer programs has received approval from the Secretary.
    (e) The student must engage in the type of training appropriate to 
their degree status:
    (1) Undergraduate students must engage in the study of a less 
commonly taught language at the intermediate or advanced level.
    (2) Non-dissertation or predissertation level graduate students 
must engage in the study of a modern foreign language at the--
    (i) Intermediate or advanced level; or
    (ii) Beginning level, provided they demonstrate advanced 
proficiency in another modern foreign language relevant to their field 
of study or obtain the permission of the Secretary.
    (3) Dissertation level graduate students must--
    (i) Engage in dissertation research abroad or dissertation writing 
in the United States;
    (ii) Demonstrate advanced proficiency in a modern foreign language 
relevant to the dissertation project and the allocation of fellowships; 
and
    (iii) Use modern foreign language(s) relevant to the allocation of 
fellowships in their dissertation research or writing.
    (f) The student meets the criteria related to educational programs 
described in this paragraph (f)(1) or (2):
    (1) The student is pursuing an educational program (including any 
major fields of study, general education requirements, certificates, 
concentrations, specializations, or minor fields of study, or other 
established components of an institution's curriculum) that requires or 
ordinarily includes--
    (i) Instruction in at least one modern foreign language related to 
the allocation of fellowships or a demonstration of proficiency in at 
least one modern foreign language related to the allocation of 
fellowships; and
    (ii) Instruction or, for graduate students, supervised research 
related to the allocation of fellowships in--
    (A) Area studies; or
    (B) The international aspects of professional fields and other 
fields of study, including but not limited to science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics fields.
    (2) The student is pursuing an educational program that includes 
all of the following:
    (i) A requirement for substantial instruction in a professional 
field or in one or more science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics fields.
    (ii) The option to incorporate international aspects of fields of 
study through instruction in area studies and at least one modern 
foreign language.
    (iii) Courses that meet fellowship duration and purpose 
requirements described in Sec.  657.30(b) and are selected under the 
guidance of an individual or committee who possesses area studies and 
modern foreign language qualifications relevant to the allocation

[[Page 68765]]

of fellowships as well as knowledge of requirements for the student's 
educational program.


Sec.  657.5  What is the amount of a fellowship?

    (a) Each fellowship consists of an institutional payment, a 
stipend, and any additional allowances permitted under this part.
    (1) A fellowship may include additional allowances payable to a 
fellow in addition to the stipend, as determined by the Secretary and 
as allocated by an approved Center or Program.
    (2) If the institutional payment determined by the Secretary is 
greater than the tuition and fees charged by the institution, the 
institutional payment portion of the fellowship is limited to actual 
costs.
    (b) The Secretary announces the following in a notice published in 
the Federal Register:
    (1) The amounts of the stipend and institutional payment for each 
type of fellow during an academic year.
    (2) The amounts of the stipend and institutional payment for each 
type of fellow during a summer session.
    (3) Whether travel allowances of any type will be permitted.
    (4) Whether dependent allowances of any type will be permitted.
    (5) The amounts of any permitted allowances.
    (6) Any limitation on the applicability of the amounts or 
allowances addressed in this paragraph (b).
    (c) Allowances are only permissible if the Secretary announces such 
allowances are permitted.
    (d) If the Secretary limits the applicability of fellowship amounts 
or the permissibility of allowances by reference to time, including the 
performance period of one or more awards, in a notice published in the 
Federal Register and the applicability period lapses, the amounts 
contained in the most recent notice or notices addressing each topic 
will remain in force as provisional amounts until the Secretary 
publishes a new notice but any allowances will no longer be permitted 
until expressly authorized in a new notice.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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:
    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.
    Institutional payment means the portion of the fellowship used to 
pay the tuition associated with a fellow's training or instruction and 
any associated student fees that are required of such a large 
proportion of all students pursuing degrees at the same degree level as 
the fellow at the institution receiving an allocation of fellowships or 
at an approved language program during the fellowship period that the 
student who does not pay the charge is an exception.
    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.
    Travel allowance means the portion of the fellowship used to pay 
for reasonable costs associated with a fellow's travel to or from a 
site for language instruction or training during the fellowship term, 
such as transportation costs or visa fees, and other reasonable costs 
that directly support the safety and security of fellows during the 
fellowship term while outside of the United States, such as overseas 
medical insurance or evacuation insurance.


Sec.  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 a Student Apply?


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 applicant institution must submit a description of the 
applicant's policy regarding non-discriminatory hiring practices.
    (d) Each applicant institution must submit a description of the 
applicant's travel policy, if one exists, and if one does not exist, a 
statement to that effect.
    (e) 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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 68766]]

established by the approved Center or Program.

Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Select an Institution for an 
Allocation of Fellowships?


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 group that shares the same or 
similar area of focus.
    (d) The Secretary may determine a minimum total score required to 
demonstrate a sufficient degree of excellence to qualify for a grant 
under this part.
    (e) If insufficient money is available to fund all applications 
demonstrating a sufficient degree of excellence as determined under 
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section, the Secretary considers 
the degree to which priorities derived from the consultation on areas 
of national need or established under the provisions of Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 for 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 extent to which 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, is appropriate for 
advanced training in those languages.
    (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 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 tenure-track 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 other relevant advising services that 
address compliance with fellowship requirements, the potential uses of 
their foreign language and area studies knowledge and training, and, as 
appropriate, safety while studying outside the United States.
    (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 students 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

[[Page 68767]]

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 the proposed project's intended outcomes.
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator(s).


Sec.  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?


Sec.  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 costs.
    (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. Any fellow 
who accepts concurrent awards from other Federal agencies that may pay 
for the same activity or cost must disclose the receipt of such other 
Federal funding to the approved Center or Program that administers the 
allocation of fellowships at their institution.
    (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 pre-approved 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 ensure 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 Sec.  657.4 
and was selected in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section;
    (2) The remaining fellowship period comprises at least one full 
academic

[[Page 68768]]

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.


Sec.  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 academic 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.


Sec.  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 plan of study in modern foreign 
language and area studies, for which the fellow applied, unless a 
revised plan of study is otherwise approved by the Secretary under this 
part.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  657.34  What are an institution's responsibilities after the 
award of a grant for administering fellowship funding?

    (a) An institution to which the Secretary awards a grant under this 
part is responsible for administering the grant in accordance with the 
regulations described in Sec.  657.6.
    (b) The institution is responsible for processing individual 
applications for fellowships in accordance with procedures described in 
Sec. Sec.  657.12 and 657.30.
    (c) The institution is responsible for disbursing funds in 
accordance with procedures described in Sec.  657.31.
    (d) The institution is responsible for terminating a fellowship in 
accordance with the procedures described in Sec.  657.32.

[FR Doc. 2024-18856 Filed 8-22-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P