[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13996-14003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7595]




[[Page 13995]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



34 CFR Part 656



Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area 
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and 
International Studies; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 13996]]


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 656

RIN 1840-AC27


Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and 
Area Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language 
and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the 
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area 
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and 
Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies (National 
Resource Centers Program). These amendments are needed in order to 
improve the application review process and to update the regulations in 
light of developments in the field of foreign language, area, and 
international studies. In the spirit of reinventing government, the 
goal of the proposed changes is to markedly reduce the burden 
associated with the application process. These proposed regulations 
would (a) reduce the burden on applicants and readers by clarifying and 
redesigning selection criteria to remove ambiguity and eliminate 
repetition of information presented in applications, (b) facilitate 
grantee selection by providing a larger point spread for greater 
differentiation of rankings, and (c) improve program quality, 
efficiency, and flexibility by adopting changes program management 
experience shows to be appropriate.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be 
addressed to Sara West, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Suite 600B, Portals Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-
5331. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to 
``National__R[email protected]''.
    Comments that concern information collection requirements must be 
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those 
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the 
preceding paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara West. Telephone: (202) 401-9782. 
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Resource Centers Program is one of several 
international education programs authorized under Part A of Title VI of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The main provisions of 
the regulations govern the awarding of grants designed to assist 
eligible institutions of higher education in improving and developing 
their programs in modern foreign languages and area or international 
studies.
    In the spirit of reinventing government, it is the Secretary's goal 
to simplify the application process and management of the National 
Resource Centers Program. The Secretary proposes changes to add clarity 
to the review process, to decrease the current burden on applicants and 
peer reviewers, to facilitate the application of uniform standards 
among peer reviewers, and to increase flexibility in program management 
for funded grantees and for the Secretary.
    The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations for the National 
Resource Centers Program by modifying the selection criteria for 
applications and by adding activities to the list of definitions and to 
the list of priorities.
    Selection Criteria. The selection criteria currently used are very 
general, leading to some misinterpretation of questions asked, frequent 
repetition of information, and the inclusion of information that is not 
pertinent to the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. The 
proposed changes seek to retain much of the sense of the current 
criteria while removing ambiguity regarding requested information. The 
purpose of the changes is to clarify what information should be 
presented so that (a) all applicants will provide more focused 
information necessary for evaluation of a proposal under this program, 
(b) applicants will be able to present all relevant information within 
fewer pages of proposal narrative, and (c) peer reviewers will be able 
to more easily and accurately evaluate and rank proposals based on 
comparative strengths.
    A reorganized, broader point scale and clearly identified point 
allocations for individual paragraphs of the selection criteria are 
proposed in order to (a) enable peer reviewers to score more carefully 
and accurately differentiate between proposals of high caliber, (b) 
discourage peer reviewers from overlooking any individual question to 
be scored, and (c) clarify for peer reviewers and applicants exactly 
what requested information corresponds to each point value.
    Expanded Definitions. The Secretary proposes to amend the 
regulations in keeping with current standards in the field of area, 
language, and international studies by (a) expanding the definition of 
a comprehensive center to include curriculum development and community 
outreach and (b) expanding the activities that define a comprehensive 
center to include ``training'' as well as research. These activities 
have long been standard at successful comprehensive National Resource 
Centers.
    Expanded Possible Priorities. The Secretary proposes to increase 
flexibility in program management by expanding the list of possible 
funding priorities to include course development. Course development 
has long been a standard activity at National Resource Centers because 
it is a primary means by which training programs are strengthened. 
Including it in the list of possible priorities is, therefore, in 
keeping with the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program.

Explanation of Changes

    The proposed changes include the following:

Section 656.3. What activities define a comprehensive or undergraduate 
National Resource Center?

    Section 656.3(e)(2). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of 
activities defining a comprehensive center to include training. The 
current list does not accurately reflect the fact that National 
Resource Centers train specialists in area, language, and international 
studies.

Section 656.7. What definitions apply?

    Section 656.7(d)(5). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of 
activities under the comprehensive center definition to reflect two 
activities commonly engaged in by successful grantees: curriculum 
development and community outreach. Curriculum development is very 
important for strengthening language and area centers and programs, 
while community outreach is necessary in order for centers to function 
as national resources. These activities are, therefore, integral to the 
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. Including curriculum 
development and

[[Page 13997]]
community outreach in the list of activities would further clarify to 
the public the purpose of the grants and activities commonly engaged in 
by grantees.

Section 656.20. How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

    Section 656.20(b). The Secretary proposes to expand the range of 
possible points for applications in order to enable peer reviewers to 
more carefully and accurately differentiate among proposals of high 
caliber in scoring. It has been the Secretary's experience that 
competition for grants under the National Resource Centers Program is 
strong. Recent winning applicants have scored in the 80's and low 90's 
on the current 100-point scale. As a result, there has been narrow 
point differentiation between successful applicants and high-ranking 
unsuccessful applicants. The Secretary believes that expanding the 
possible point range would facilitate funding decisions by providing 
peer reviewers with a larger scale on which to rank applications, 
allowing for greater differentiation of scores for applications of 
similar but different merit. The changed point scale, reflecting 
changes in the technical review criteria and their point allocations, 
would add 50 possible points for competitions for which there are no 
announced competitive priorities and 60 possible points for 
competitions for which competitive priorities have been announced.

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

    The Secretary proposes extensive changes in the sections dealing 
with selection criteria for comprehensive and undergraduate centers in 
order to improve the program's application review process and to 
reflect current standards in the field of foreign language, area and 
international studies. Modifications to the criteria are meant to more 
clearly identify the information that is relevant to the competition 
and to allow applicants to streamline their applications, thereby 
facilitating proposal writing for applicants and evaluation for peer 
reviewers. The proposed criteria incorporate most aspects of the 
current criteria, and applicants would, therefore, be expected to 
provide much of the same information as in the past. By more 
specifically identifying information to be provided in an application, 
the proposed criteria would allow applicants to exclude less helpful, 
generalized, and sometimes repetitious information and provide a 
concise justification for proposed activities in light of the purpose 
of the National Resource Centers Program.
    Section 656.21(a). The Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of 
operation criterion with a criterion called Program planning and 
budget. The Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related 
elements of the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost 
effectiveness, and the Need and potential impact criteria. It has been 
the Secretary's experience that the language of these current criteria 
requires modification in order to avoid confusion among applicants and 
peer reviewers regarding the meaning of the questions asked. For 
example, one question under the Plan of operation criterion asks to 
what extent the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the 
program. Applicants and evaluators are frequently uncertain whether 
``program'' refers to the National Resource Centers grant program or to 
the applicant's training program. Additionally, the separation of these 
related elements under the present criteria frequently causes 
applicants to repeat the same information under several criteria. The 
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate 
repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the 
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of 
proposed activities in one criterion.
    Section 656.21(b). The Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of 
key personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff 
resources. The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of 
information as the current key personnel criterion but would also 
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and 
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional 
development opportunities.
    Section 656.21(c). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Budget and cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating questions on 
this subject matter under the proposed Program planning and budget 
criterion. The Secretary proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion 
that would combine related aspects of the current Need and potential 
impact, Evaluation plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The 
combination of these questions in one criterion is logical due to the 
interrelatedness of questions about past performance and evaluating 
future performance.
    Section 656.21(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions 
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion. The Secretary 
proposes to redesignate the criterion Commitment to the subject area on 
which the center focuses, with a minor modification of language in 
order to identify the information to be presented.
    Section 656.21(e). The Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate 
the Strength of library criterion. Due to the changes in information 
technologies and the rising costs of maintaining traditional 
collections, a library's book and periodical holdings are no longer the 
only factor that should be considered in evaluating the strength of a 
National Resource Center's library. The proposed regulations would 
clarify information to be presented and take into account that library 
resources can be provided in print and non-print media, through 
cooperative collection and access arrangements with other library 
collections, and through on-line, electronic data bases.
    Section 656.21(f). The Secretary proposes to insert a new criterion 
called Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. The 
proposed criterion would incorporate related elements of the current 
Quality of the center's instructional program and Quality of the 
center's relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary 
believes that including all questions related to non-language course 
offerings in one section would allow grantees to streamline their 
proposals and avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience 
that combining questions about non-language and language courses in the 
same criterion can lead to applicants' neglecting to provide full 
information about both non-language and language training. Further, the 
comprehensive nature of a resource center is reflected by the extent to 
which it incorporates non-language training in addition to training in 
language, literature, and linguistics. For these reasons, the Secretary 
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language 
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the 
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the 
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language 
and area or international studies training.
    Section 656.21(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this 
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program. 
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently 
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but 
more specifically identify information to be provided.

[[Page 13998]]

    Section 656.21(h). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Quality of the center's relationships within the institution criterion 
due to the inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of 
the center's non-language instructional program criterion. The 
Secretary proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that 
would combine elements of the current Quality of the center's 
relationships within the institution and Overseas activities criteria. 
The new criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of 
training options for students within the context of a single criterion.
    Section 656.21(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions 
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the 
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff 
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this 
program that overseas opportunities and activities have been critical 
to providing successful training options for students and professional 
development opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary 
believes that it is more appropriate and more clearly related to the 
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program to ask questions 
regarding overseas activities in the context of curriculum design and 
staff resources. The Secretary proposes to insert in this section a 
modified Outreach activities criterion. Proposed changes to this 
criterion reflect the Secretary's experience that outreach to 
postsecondary institutions, business, the media, and the general public 
is frequently overlooked in favor of elementary and secondary school 
outreach. By specifying separate point allocations for different kinds 
of outreach, the Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the 
National Resource Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
    Section 656.21(j). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Need and potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related 
questions under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and 
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion 
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion, 
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the 
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions 
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points 
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the 
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on 
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications 
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority 
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet 
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do 
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total 
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain 
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality 
proposals are funded.
    Section 656.21(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph 
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously 
noted.
    Section 656.21(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph 
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be 
included as previously noted.

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

    Like the criteria for comprehensive centers, the proposed 
undergraduate center selection criteria incorporate most aspects of the 
current criteria but are restructured to enable applicants to present 
the appropriate information more succinctly and with less repetition. 
The same selection criteria proposed for comprehensive centers are 
proposed for undergraduate centers, with small variances in point 
values and questions. The primary difference is that, for undergraduate 
centers, only questions related to undergraduate training programs are 
asked, while the comprehensive center selection criteria encompass 
undergraduate, graduate, and professional training programs.
    Section 656.22(a). As in the comprehensive centers selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of operation 
criterion with a criterion called Program planning and budget. The 
Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related elements of 
the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost effectiveness, and Need 
and potential impact criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience 
that the language of these current criteria requires modification in 
order to avoid confusion among applicants and peer reviewers regarding 
the meaning of the questions asked. Additionally, the separation of 
these related elements into individual criteria frequently causes 
applicants to repeat the same information under several guises. The 
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate 
the need for repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the 
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of 
proposed activities in one criterion.
    Section 656.22(b). As in the comprehensive centers selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of key 
personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff resources. 
The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of 
information as the current key personnel criterion, but would also 
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and 
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional 
development opportunities.
    Section 656.22(c). As in the comprehensive center selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Budget and 
cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating similar questions under 
the proposed Program planning and budget criterion. The Secretary 
proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion that would combine 
related aspects of the current Need and potential impact, Evaluation 
plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The combination of these 
questions in one criterion is logical due to the interrelatedness of 
questions about past performance and evaluating future performance.
    Section 656.22(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions 
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion and to redesignate 
the current criterion Commitment to the subject area on which the 
center focuses, with a minor modification of language in order to 
identify the information to be presented.
    Section 656.22(e). As in the comprehensive center selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate the Strength 
of library criterion. Due to the changes in information technology and 
the rising costs of maintaining traditional collections, a library's 
book and periodical holdings are no longer the only factor that should 
be considered in evaluating the strength of a National Resource 
Center's library. The proposed regulations would clarify information to 
be presented and take into account that library resources can be 
provided in print and non-print media, through cooperative collections 
and access arrangements with other library collections, and through on-
line, electronic data bases.
    Section 656.22(f). As in the comprehensive center selection 
criteria,

[[Page 13999]]
the Secretary proposes to add a new criterion called Quality of the 
center's non-language instructional program. The proposed criterion 
would incorporate related elements of the current Quality of the 
center's instructional program and Quality of the center's 
relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary believes 
that including all questions related to non-language course offerings 
in one section would allow grantees to streamline their proposals and 
avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience that combining 
questions about non-language and language courses in the same criterion 
can lead to applicants neglecting to provide full information about 
both non-language and language training. For that reason, the Secretary 
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language 
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the 
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the 
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language 
and area or international studies training.
    Section 656.22(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this 
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program. 
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently 
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but 
more specifically identify information to be provided.
    Section 656.22(h). As in the comprehensive center selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Quality of 
the center's relationships within the institution criterion due to the 
inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of the 
center's non-language instructional program criterion. The Secretary 
proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that would 
combine elements of the current Quality of the center's relationships 
within the institution and Overseas activities criteria. The new 
criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of training 
options for undergraduate students within the context of a single 
criterion.
    Section 656.22(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current 
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions 
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the 
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff 
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this 
program that overseas activities have been critical to providing 
successful training options for students and professional development 
opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary believes that it is 
more appropriate and more clearly related to the purpose of the 
National Resource Centers Program to ask questions regarding overseas 
activities in the context of curriculum design and staff resources. The 
Secretary proposes to add under this section a modified Outreach 
activities criterion. Proposed changes to this criterion reflect the 
Secretary's experience that outreach to postsecondary institutions, 
business, the media, and the general public is frequently overlooked in 
favor of elementary and secondary school outreach. By specifying 
separate point allocations for different kinds of outreach, the 
Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the National Resource 
Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
    Section 656.22(j). As in the comprehensive center selection 
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Need and 
potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related questions 
under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and 
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion 
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion, 
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the 
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions 
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points 
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the 
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on 
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications 
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority 
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet 
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do 
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total 
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain 
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality 
proposals are funded.
    Section 656.22(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph 
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously 
noted.
    Section 656.22(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph 
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be 
included as previously noted.
    Section 656.23. What priorities may the Secretary establish?
    The Secretary proposes two modifications to this section that would 
help to clarify and expand possible funding priorities.
    Section 656.23(a)(3). The Secretary proposes to clarify that 
intensive language instruction is not limited to 10 contact hours per 
week by adding the phrase ``or more.'' Ten contact hours of instruction 
per week is normally considered the minimum for what constitutes 
intensive language training rather than the standard.
    Section 656.23(a)(4). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of 
types of activities to be carried out by adding ``course development.'' 
Course development is an important tool for strengthening training 
programs and, therefore, is in keeping with the purpose of the National 
Resource Centers Program.

Executive Order 12866

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such 
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the regulations clearly 
stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording 
that interfere with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the 
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations 
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) 
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a 
numbered heading; for example, Sec. 656.20 How does the Secretary 
evaluate an application?) (4) Is the description of the proposed 
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this 
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed regulations? How could 
this description be more helpful in making the proposed regulations 
easier to understand? (5) What else could the Department do to make the 
regulations easier to understand?
    A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand should also be sent to 
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of 
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (Room 5100 FB-10B), Washington, 
DC 20202-2241.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not 
have a

[[Page 14000]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    These proposed regulations merely correct or simplify and clarify 
provisions contained in previous regulations and would impose minimal 
requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds. The 
small entities that would be affected by these proposed regulations are 
small institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under 
this program. However, the regulations would not have a significant 
economic impact on the institutions affected because the regulations 
would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary 
Federal supervision.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Sections 656.21 and 656.22 contain information collection 
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of 
these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its 
review.
    Collection of Information: National Resource Centers Program for 
Foreign Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International 
Studies.
    Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of 
higher education are eligible to apply for grants under these 
regulations. The information to be collected is specified by the 
proposed selection criteria and includes information currently 
collected under regulations for this program. This information is 
needed and used by the Department to make grants.
    The Secretary estimates that this information collection will 
decrease the current estimated burden of 155 hours per response to 100 
hours per response. The estimated burden includes the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
application to be submitted. Competitions for the National Resource 
Centers Program are held every three years, with approximately 150 
respondents per competition.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Wendy Taylor.
    The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed 
collections of information in--
     Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information 
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility;
     Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect 
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the 
proposed regulations.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the 
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program.

Invitation to Comment

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments and 
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
    All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations 
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment 
period, in Suite 600B, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the 
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of 
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other 
agency or authority of the United States.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 656

    Colleges and universities, Education, International education, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.015)

    Dated: March 25, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations by revising Part 656 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for Part 656 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 656.3  [Amended]

    2. Section 656.3 is amended by adding ``training and'' before 
``research'' in paragraph (e)(2).
    3. Section 656.7 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the end 
of paragraph (d)(3), removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(4) 
and adding, in its place, ``; and'', and adding paragraph (d)(5) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 656.7  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Engages in curriculum development and community outreach.
* * * * *
    4. Section 656.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 656.20  How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

* * * * *
    (b) In general, the Secretary awards up to 150 possible points for 
these criteria. However, if the criterion in Secs. 656.21(l) or 
656.22(l) is used, the Secretary awards up to 160 possible points. The 
maximum possible points for each criterion are shown in parentheses.
    5. Section 656.21 is revised to read as follows:
    
[[Page 14001]]



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

    The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an 
application for a comprehensive center:
    (a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant 
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose 
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan 
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute 
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources 
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5 
points);
    (3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are 
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
    (4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the 
institution's undergraduate, graduate, and professional training 
programs (5 points).
    (b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are 
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training 
programs, are provided professional development opportunities 
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching, 
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
    (2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements, 
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty 
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library 
are involved (5 points); and
    (3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its 
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been 
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic 
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5 
points).
    (c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center's activities and training 
programs have a significant impact on the university, community, 
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments, 
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of 
center resources; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a 
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and 
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups 
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of 
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and 
the elderly (10 points); and
    (2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan 
that will be comprehensive and objective and that will produce 
quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which 
recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program 
(10 points).
    (d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent 
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the 
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area, 
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach 
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
    (e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine--
    (1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print 
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at 
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which 
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides 
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for 
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
    (2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions 
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other 
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers, 
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the 
library's holdings (5 points).
    (f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
    (1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a 
variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the 
center's subject matter are available in the institution's professional 
schools (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized 
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area 
(5 points);
    (3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number 
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and 
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy 
training (5 points); and
    (4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for 
undergraduate and graduate students (5 points).
    (g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the 
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students 
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of 
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other 
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate 
foreign languages (5 points);
    (3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to 
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the 
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including 
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language 
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5 
points); and
    (4) The quality of the language program as measured by the 
performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of 
resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency 
requirements (5 points).
    (h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated 
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of 
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major, 
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs 
and their requirements (including language requirements) are 
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an 
undergraduate training program of high quality (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the center's curriculum provides training 
options for graduate students from a variety of disciplines and 
professional fields and the extent to which these programs and their 
requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a 
center in this subject area and result in graduate training programs of 
high quality (5 points); and
    (3) The extent to which the center provides academic and career 
advising

[[Page 14002]]
services for students; the extent to which the center has established 
formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad 
and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to 
which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' 
study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
    (i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a 
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty 
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that 
involve--
    (1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
    (2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
    (3) Business, media, and the general public (5 points).
    (j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under 
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific 
priorities for Centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which 
those priorities are being served.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)

    6. Section 656.22 is revised to read as follows:


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

    The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an 
application for an undergraduate center:
    (a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant 
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose 
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan 
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute 
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources 
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5 
points);
    (3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are 
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
    (4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the 
institution's undergraduate training program (5 points).
    (b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are 
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training 
programs, are provided professional development opportunities 
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching, 
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
    (2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements, 
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty 
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library 
are involved (5 points); and
    (3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its 
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been 
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic 
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5 
points).
    (c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center's activities and training 
programs have a significant impact on the university, community, 
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments, 
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of 
center resources; the extent to which students matriculate into 
advanced language and area or international studies programs or related 
professional programs; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a 
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and 
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups 
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of 
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and 
the elderly (10 points); and
    (2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan 
that will be comprehensive and objective and produce quantifiable, 
outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent 
evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program (10 
points).
    (d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent 
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the 
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area, 
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach 
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
    (e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine--
    (1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print 
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at 
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which 
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides 
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for 
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
    (2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions 
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other 
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers, 
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the 
library's holdings (5 points).
    (f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
    (1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a 
variety of disciplines (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized 
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area 
(5 points);
    (3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number 
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and 
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy 
training (5 points); and
    (4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for 
undergraduate students (5 points).
    (g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20 
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the 
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students 
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
    (2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of 
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other 
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate 
foreign languages (5 points);
    (3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to 
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the 
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including 
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language 
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5 
points); and
    (4) The quality of the language program as measured by the 
performance-based instruction being

[[Page 14003]]
used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and 
practice, and language proficiency requirements (5 points).
    (h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews 
each application to determine--
    (1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated 
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of 
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major, 
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs 
and their requirements (including language requirements) are 
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an 
undergraduate training program of high quality (10 points); and
    (2) The extent to which the center provides academic and career 
advising services for students; the extent to which the center has 
established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or 
study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and 
the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other 
institutions' study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
    (i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each 
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a 
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty 
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that 
involve--
    (1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
    (2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
    (3) Business, media and the general public (5 points).
    (j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under 
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific 
priorities for centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which 
those priorities are being served.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)

    7. Section 656.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and 
(a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 656.23  What priorities may the Secretary establish?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Level or intensiveness of language instruction, such as 
intermediate or advanced language instruction, or instruction at an 
intensity of 10 contact hours or more per week.
    (4) Types of activities to be carried out, for example, cooperative 
summer intensive language programs, course development, or teacher 
training activities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7595 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P