Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-10030

Rule2024-10030

AmeriCorps State and National Updates

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 28, 2024

Effective

October 1, 2024

Issuing agencies

Corporation for National and Community Service

Abstract

The Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is revising its regulations governing the AmeriCorps State and National program to provide programmatic and grantmaking flexibilities while protecting program integrity and safeguarding taxpayer funds. This rule limits AmeriCorps State and National grantees' required share of program costs (known as "match" or "cost share") to a scale that starts at 24 percent for the first three-year grant cycle and increases more incrementally with each successive three-year grant cycle, until it reaches 30 percent in the fourth three-year grant cycle (that is, the tenth year of the grant) and beyond; simplifies the criteria that allow AmeriCorps to waive match for AmeriCorps State and National grantees; allows AmeriCorps to grant waivers of education hour limitations under certain circumstances to permit members serving with AmeriCorps State and National grantees to spend an increased number of hours on education and training activities; and removes the four-term limit on service in AmeriCorps State and National programs, with a clarification of the number of terms for which AmeriCorps will fund member benefits. Non-substantive changes in this rule are updates to nomenclature to reflect that the Corporation for National and Community Service operates as AmeriCorps, deletion of provisions that were based on a statutory provision that has since been deleted, and updates to outdated citations.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46024-46035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-10030]

[[Page 46024]]

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

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

45 CFR Parts 2520, 2521, and 2522

RIN 3045-AA84

AmeriCorps State and National Updates

AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (operating
as AmeriCorps) is revising its regulations governing the AmeriCorps
State and National program to provide programmatic and grantmaking
flexibilities while protecting program integrity and safeguarding
taxpayer funds. This rule limits AmeriCorps State and National
grantees' required share of program costs (known as ``match'' or ``cost
share'') to a scale that starts at 24 percent for the first three-year
grant cycle and increases more incrementally with each successive
three-year grant cycle, until it reaches 30 percent in the fourth
three-year grant cycle (that is, the tenth year of the grant) and
beyond; simplifies the criteria that allow AmeriCorps to waive match
for AmeriCorps State and National grantees; allows AmeriCorps to grant
waivers of education hour limitations under certain circumstances to
permit members serving with AmeriCorps State and National grantees to
spend an increased number of hours on education and training
activities; and removes the four-term limit on service in AmeriCorps
State and National programs, with a clarification of the number of
terms for which AmeriCorps will fund member benefits. Non-substantive
changes in this rule are updates to nomenclature to reflect that the
Corporation for National and Community Service operates as AmeriCorps,
deletion of provisions that were based on a statutory provision that
has since been deleted, and updates to outdated citations.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Bastress-Tahmasebi, Deputy
Director, AmeriCorps State and National at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4309012230373126303017222b2e223026212a03222e26312a202c3133306d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d474f6c7e797f687e7e596c65606c7e686f644d6c60687f646e627f7d7e236a627b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, (202) 606-6667; or Elizabeth Appel,
Associate General Counsel, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3b6b28383969fb3929e96819a909c818380dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3174704141545d71505c544358525e4341421f565e47">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, (202) 967-5070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Overview of Rule
A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit on Education and
Training Activities--Sec. 2520.50
B. Revising Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.60
C. Criteria for Waiving Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.70
D. Limit on Number of Terms an Individual May Serve in
AmeriCorps State and National--Sec. 2522.235
III. Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses
A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit on Education and
Training Activities--Sec. 2520.50
1. Support for the Waiver Opportunity
2. Opposition to the Waiver Opportunity
3. Request To Delete or Raise the Limit Overall, Instead of
Issuing Individual Waivers
4. Request for Changes to the Waiver Criteria
5. Questions on How the Waiver Process Would Work
B. Revising Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.60
1. Support for Proposed Match Scale
2. Opposition to Proposed Match Scale
a. Need for More Match Relief
b. Inflation and Costs Already Increase Required Match
c. AmeriCorps' Match Is More Difficult Than Other Federal
Agencies
d. The Proposed Match Scale Would Undermine Programs'
Effectiveness
e. The Proposed Match Scale Increases Burden and Risk
f. Request for 25 Percent Match in Lieu of Proposed Match Scale
3. Opposition to Match, Generally
C. Criteria for Waiving Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.70
1. Support for the Proposed Match Waiver
2. Opposition to the Proposed Waiver-Based System
3. Requests To Change Waiver Criteria
4. Comments on Waiver Process
D. Limit on Number of Terms an Individual May Serve in
AmeriCorps State and National--Sec. 2522.235
1. Support for Removing the Limit on Number of Terms
2. Request for Clarification That Service Not Limited to Number
of Terms To Attain Two Education Awards
3. Whether Other Benefits Can Be Earned After Attaining the
Value of Two Full-Time Education Awards
IV. Changes From Proposed to Final
A. Final Match Schedule at Sec. 2521.60
B. Clarification on Unlimited Number of Terms
C. Updates to Outdated Provision/Citations
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Takings (Executive Order 12630)
G. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175)

I. Background

AmeriCorps is revising its AmeriCorps State and National program
regulations to address stakeholder feedback on match requirements, be
more consistent with other grant programs within the agency, and reduce
barriers to grantee organizations that are specifically designed to
provide education and training to members as part of their national
service program. AmeriCorps State and National provides grants to
States, territories, Indian Tribes, public and private nonprofit
organizations, local governments, and institutions of higher education
to carry out national service programs, offering a wide range of
service opportunities. AmeriCorps State and National also provides
general operating funding for State service commissions. AmeriCorps is
issuing these revisions under the authority of the National and
Community Service Act, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c).

II. Overview of the Final Rule

This rule makes four substantive changes to the AmeriCorps State
and National regulations, as described below. In addition, this rule
makes nomenclature changes to add a definition for ``AmeriCorps'' and
change ``the Corporation'' to ``AmeriCorps'' throughout these
regulations to reflect that the Corporation for National and Community
Service now operates as AmeriCorps, deletes provisions that were based
on a statutory provision that has since been deleted, and updates
outdated citations. This final rule includes a delayed effective date
in order to allow time to prepare for implementation.

A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit on Education and Training
Activities--Sec. 2520.50

The current regulation sets a 20 percent limit to the aggregate
total of all service hours in a program that AmeriCorps members may
spend in education and training activities. As a result, each program
must have at least 80 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps member
hours in service. This final rule allows AmeriCorps to waive this limit
under certain circumstances, to permit up to 50 percent of the
aggregate AmeriCorps member hours in a program to be spent in education
and training activities. When deciding whether a waiver is appropriate,
AmeriCorps will consider whether the AmeriCorps program:
<bullet> Is a Registered Apprenticeship program, or
<bullet> Is a job training or job readiness program, or
<bullet> Includes activities to support member attainment of a GED
or high school diploma or occupational, technical, or safety
credentials, or

[[Page 46025]]

<bullet> Primarily enrolls economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps
members and is designed to provide soft skills or life skills
development for those members.
The final rule allows members in these types of programs who might
benefit from additional education and training--for example, people
reentering society after incarceration--to participate in national
service while acquiring skills and knowledge to ease their transition.
Under the current rule, many workforce development and Registered
Apprenticeship programs with full-time participants are only able to
offer ``less than full-time'' AmeriCorps member slots because members'
service hours spent in training, in excess of the 20% limit, are not
creditable. In turn, this limits the amount of the education award
available to their participants and could limit their participants'
access to health care, childcare, and other benefits afforded to
members enrolled in full-time slots and results in their participants
being unable to get credit for a large portion of their hours. The
waiver will better allow AmeriCorps to advance equity for underserved
communities by helping to address this significant barrier to entry.
AmeriCorps expects to grant waivers to new and existing Registered
Apprenticeship programs, job training or job readiness programs,
programs that include activities to support member attainment of a GED
or high school diploma or other credentials, or programs that primarily
enroll economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps members and are designed
to provide soft skills or life skills development for those members.
Grantees may request waivers in writing as part of their grant
application and receive a decision on the waiver prior to grant award.
As most of the programs that would benefit from this waiver have
participants who are serving in the program full time but may only
serve part-time as AmeriCorps members because of the current limits on
in-service educational time, there is no expectation that the level of
service provided to communities would decline. Programs that receive
this waiver will be able to allow their members to spend up to 50
percent of their hours in education and training activities, with the
remaining 50 percent in service activities, rather than requiring that
80 percent of the hours be devoted to service activities. While it may
appear that these programs would be providing nearly 40 percent fewer
hours in service to communities, in fact, eligible programs already
have participants serving in their programs full time who serve only
part-time as AmeriCorps members. For example, a job readiness program
may engage a participant in 50% education and training activities and
50% service activities, and without a waiver, the participant would be
serving as an AmeriCorps member only part-time--that is, for the 50% of
their time spent in service activities and 20 percent of the hours they
spend in education and training.

B. Revising Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.60

This rule revises the scale that sets out grantees' program costs
not provided by AmeriCorps (known as ``match'' or ``cost share''). The
current regulations require a graduated match that incrementally
increases each year to a total of 50 percent overall share by the tenth
year and for each year afterward without a break in funding of five
years or more. This final rule replaces that match scale with one that
gradually increases at the end of each three-year grant period (rather
than annually) to reach a total of 30 percent overall share by the
tenth year and for each year afterward without a break in funding of
five years or more.
As described in the next section, this change provides a less
aggressive scale over a shorter total time period than the proposed
scale, which would have increased match to reach a total of 50 percent
overall share by the sixteenth year. That proposal was intended to
address the increased difficulty many grantees experience in raising
match funds, as evidenced by the increase in waiver requests AmeriCorps
receives, and to address many of the comments AmeriCorps received in
response to the Request for Information from Non-Federal Stakeholders:
Grantee Match Requirements (RFI) it published in 2022. See 87 FR 26740
(May 5, 2022). The proposed rule provided a more gradually increasing
scale than the current regulations, which require match increases from
26 percent as of the fourth consecutive year they receive a grant to 50
percent as of year 10 and beyond for the total budget.\1\ The final
rule further adjusts the scale to instead provide that grantees must
raise at least 24 percent overall match in their first grant period,
with incremental increases with each successive grant period, reaching
a 30 percent overall minimum match by year 10 and beyond. In developing
the final rule match scale, AmeriCorps weighed the many comments on the
proposed rule that indicated it would not provide sufficient relief to
prospective or existing grantees, and would undermine the agency's
responsibility to safeguard and prudently leverage taxpayer funds and
promote program stability. AmeriCorps determined that an increasing
match scale is appropriate for organizations to demonstrate that they
are increasing their capacity to operate AmeriCorps programs and
maintaining or increasing community support and investment by assuming
more of the cost with each grant period. AmeriCorps determined that a
match minimum of 30 percent, rather than 50 percent, at year 10 is
appropriate to relieve some of the burden that match places on
programs. As some commenters pointed out, the dollar-for-dollar match
requirement of 50 percent is generally more burdensome than the match
imposed by other Federal agencies, because match for the AmeriCorps
State and National programs is calculated based on the total cost of
running the program, as opposed to the amount of funding provided by
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps also considered that the recent increase to the
minimum living allowance necessarily raises the cost of running
programs, which in turn raises the total monetary contribution
associated with the required match, given that match is based on a
percentage of total cost of carrying out a program. AmeriCorps also
determined that reaching the highest minimum at year 10 is appropriate
to minimize the burden of tracking three additional increases in match
(i.e., up to year 16), as would have been required under the proposed
version of the match scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For several years, Congress has, through appropriations
laws, provided that AmeriCorps programs receiving grants under the
National Service Trust program must meet an overall minimum match of
24 percent for the first three years of receiving funding, and then
must meet the overall match requirements in section 2521.60 of the
current regulations. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022, Public Law 117-103, Section 402.

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

[[Page 46026]]

AmeriCorps estimates that the reduction in required match will
total less than $100 million annually and anticipates that reducing the
burden on programs to raise and report these dollars will increase
economic benefits to the programs and the communities they serve. It
has been estimated that each taxpayer dollar spent on AmeriCorps and
AmeriCorps Seniors programs generates an over $17 return in benefits to
society, program members, and the government. See Dominic Modicamore
and Alix Naugler, AmeriCorps and Senior Corps: Quantifying the Impact,
Voices for National Service by ICF Incorporated, LLC, pp. 33-34 (July
2020) <a href="https://voicesforservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICF_AmeriCorps-and-Senior-Corps_Quantifying-the-Impact_FINAL.pdf">https://voicesforservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICF_AmeriCorps-and-Senior-Corps_Quantifying-the-Impact_FINAL.pdf</a> (note:
the return on investment is based on a total of AmeriCorps and
AmeriCorps Seniors programs and does not disaggregate the return for
AmeriCorps State and National). Benefits to members include increased
educational attainment and employment outcomes and benefits to society
include the cost savings, reduced spending, and additional income
resulting from national service. This final rule does not increase the
amount of Federal funding invested in AmeriCorps State and National
programs, but by reducing required match, the rule allows programs to
devote more time to outcome-producing activities that may, in turn,
increase benefits overall.

C. Criteria for Waiving Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.70

This rule revises the criteria that grantees must demonstrate when
they request a waiver of the matching requirements. Currently, the
regulation requires grantees to demonstrate: (1) a lack of resources at
the local level; (2) that the lack of resources is unique or unusual;
(3) the efforts the grantee has made to raise matching resources; and
(4) the amount of matching resources the grantee has raised or
reasonably expects to raise. The final rule instead specifies four
criteria and requires grantees to demonstrate only one of them, and in
addition provide supporting documentation and a description of the
efforts made to raise match. The final rule's waiver criteria mirror
the waiver criteria required in AmeriCorps Seniors programs, with one
additional criterion to allow waivers for organizations with revenue of
less than $500,000. Specifically, under the final rule, grantees have
to demonstrate one of the following: initial difficulties in developing
local funding sources during the first three years of operations; an
economic downturn, natural disaster, or similar event in the grantee's
service area that severely restricts or reduces sources of local
funding support; the unexpected discontinuation of local support from
one or more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years;
or an organizational revenue of less than $500,000.
The current regulations' waiver requirements are overly burdensome
to grantees and enhance the risk that AmeriCorps funds will not be
fully expended, because grantees must return AmeriCorps funds at
closeout if they do not meet the match requirement or receive a waiver.
The new waiver criteria reduce this burden and provide more consistency
with AmeriCorps Seniors' match waiver criteria. To ensure consistency
between the programs, the new AmeriCorps State and National match
waiver criteria are identical in wording to AmeriCorps Seniors' match
waiver criteria, with one additional criterion. The additional
criterion in this final rule, for organizations with less than $500,000
in revenue (as shown on an IRS Form 990, for example), is intended to
encourage new, small organizations and those with programs in
underserved communities. The rule still requires a description of
efforts made to raise matching resources but clarifies that this
description must be provided with the waiver request.

D. Limit on Number of Terms an Individual May Serve in AmeriCorps State
and National--Sec. 2522.235

The current regulation provides that individuals who serve in
AmeriCorps State and National may receive the benefits offered by
AmeriCorps for serving up to, but not more than, four terms. It also
includes information on how terms are calculated if an individual is
released early under various circumstances. The benefits offered to
AmeriCorps members include the AmeriCorps Segal Education Award from
the National Service Trust upon successful completion of their terms of
service. Benefits during service include a living allowance, financial
benefits during an extended term of disaster-related service,
childcare, and health care.
Separate regulations at 45 CFR 2525.50 limit participants to
receiving no more than the value of two full-time education awards. The
final rule removes the four-term limit, thus allowing any individual to
serve as many terms as necessary to earn the value of two full-time
education awards, regardless of whether those terms are served on a
full-time, part-time, or reduced part-time basis. This revision removes
an artificial barrier on individuals' ability to continue to serve.
In 2010, AmeriCorps established the four-term limit in the current
regulations to ensure that there would be opportunities for all
interested Americans to serve because, at the time, applications for
AmeriCorps far exceeded available positions. See 75 FR 51395, 51406-07
(August 20, 2010). An excess demand for AmeriCorps positions no longer
exists to justify this term limit. Even accounting for the possibility
that demand will at some point exceed the number of AmeriCorps
positions available, the current regulation's term limit is too broad a
prohibition. Service terms vary considerably, encompassing full-time,
part-time, reduced part-time, quarter-time, and minimum-time terms, as
well as any term from which one exits after serving 15 percent of the
agreed term of service. Treating each of these terms of service as
equivalent for the purposes of a term limit is unfair to those who may
have served shorter terms of service but would like to serve more.
Individuals should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, from
participating in national service. AmeriCorps believes a term limit is
unnecessary, as there is already an existing limit to education
awards--a significant incentive for participation in national service.
To align with this existing limit to education awards funded by
AmeriCorps, the final rule clarifies that AmeriCorps will fund benefits
(e.g., living allowance, financial benefits during an extended term of
disaster-related service, childcare, and health care) only up to the
number of terms needed to attain those education awards.

III. Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses

AmeriCorps published a proposed rule with updates to the AmeriCorps
State and National regulations on October 6, 2023. See 88 FR 69604. In
response, AmeriCorps received 370 comment submissions by the December
5, 2023, comment deadline. Commenters included national service
associations, State service commissions, organizations carrying out
AmeriCorps State and National programs, former and current AmeriCorps
members, and others. Overall, many commenters stated that they agreed
with modernizing the regulations to make them more equitable and
effective but asserted that the proposed rule provided only superficial
changes, added complexity and bureaucracy by relying on waivers, and
would lead to increased

[[Page 46027]]

administrative burden and risk. These commenters requested that the
agency continue working on the rule to better meet the needs of
AmeriCorps members and grantees and ensure that all AmeriCorps grantees
have more time and resources to devote to fulfilling their programs'
purposes. AmeriCorps closely reviewed each of the comments and
appreciates the extensive experience upon which these comments are
based. AmeriCorps afforded that experience significant weight in
reviewing the comments, but ultimately must address the comments in
light of what best meets AmeriCorps' mission while safeguarding
taxpayer funds.
Most of the comments specifically addressed each of the four
proposed substantive changes. The following discussion summarizes the
comments received and AmeriCorps' responses to those comments.

A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit on Education and Training
Activities--Sec. 2520.50

1. Support for the Waiver Opportunity
A few who commented on the proposed waiver of the 20 percent limit
on education and training activities to allow up to 50 percent
expressed support for the waiver, as proposed. Among the reasons
expressed in support of the waiver were that:
<bullet> The waiver allows programs to provide more training to
members who might need it, for example by allowing members to shadow
more experienced members after formal training is complete;
<bullet> The waiver increases the equitability of programs by
providing members with the opportunity to develop job skills, earn
certifications, and receive other training they may not otherwise have
had access to because of past court involvement, physical or learning
disabilities, poverty, or other obstacles;
<bullet> The waiver would allow for more robust bridgebuilding
training (that is, training that equips leaders with skills to bridge
divides that limit American potential) and provide professional skills
to make AmeriCorps members, including economically disadvantaged
members, more adept at navigating challenges;
<bullet> The waiver would allow more members to successfully
complete their term of service and gain the skills needed for
employment.
Response: AmeriCorps agrees that the proposed waiver would provide
for the flexibilities these commenters pointed out.
2. Opposition to the Waiver Opportunity
Three commenters opposed the change in the 20 percent limit. Among
the reasons for their opposition were:
<bullet> The intent of AmeriCorps is to provide community service
rather than training;
<bullet> AmeriCorps should continue to distinguish itself from
existing educational and vocational training programs by maintaining
its unique status as a service program in which participants learn by
doing;
<bullet> The current 20 percent limit is adequate for any program
whose prime purpose is service; and
<bullet> The waiver would create a two-tiered program in which
better educated AmeriCorps members spend more time in service but less-
educated members spend more time receiving education and training.
Response: AmeriCorps is a national service agency that is, and will
remain, distinct from existing educational and vocational programs
because it focuses on providing structured service opportunities with
visible benefits to both the national service participants and the
communities in which they serve. AmeriCorps has heard from many grantee
organizations, including many that commented on this proposed rule,
that the 20 percent limit is not adequate for their programs. For
several reasons, AmeriCorps does not agree that the waiver would create
a two-tiered program in which ``better-educated'' members spend more
time in service than others. First, the availability of a waiver is not
predicated on members' educational levels; second, the waiver would not
necessarily be used by individual program to create two tiers that
afford some members more training and education than others; third,
AmeriCorps expects that in the apprenticeship program model, the
education and training are directly related to the members' service and
thus enhance the service itself; and fourth, overall, the variation in
AmeriCorps programs and diversity of participants in those programs is
a core value of the agency.
3. Request To Delete or Raise the Limit Overall, Instead of Issuing
Individual Waivers
Most who commented on the proposed waiver of the current 20 percent
limit on education and training activities advocated for removing the
limit entirely. These commenters stated that members in general want
more professional development and training, and that all grantees
should be able to offer members more for their service experience,
remain equally competitive in the labor market, and respond to
workforce development priorities without the burden of having to apply
for a waiver. Commenters stated that the need to apply for a waiver
adds bureaucracy and uncertainty to the application and recruitment
process for new grantees because programs will not know whether their
program design is acceptable in a timely manner.
Many of these commenters noted that AmeriCorps made member
development and career pathways a strategic goal for FY22-26 and a
competitive criterion in its FY24 grantmaking and asserted that the 20
percent cap undermines this goal. These commenters stated that the 20
percent limit is outdated because it was established in the early days
of AmeriCorps as a need to distinguish AmeriCorps from existing
educational and vocational programs, but that in execution the limit
poses administrative burdens--for timekeeping, categorizing activities
as service or education/training, and monitoring--that are unnecessary
management challenges and audit risks. These commenters stated that
AmeriCorps' grant application review process, grantee performance
measures, and service member descriptions all better assess program
design, quality, and effectiveness than an arbitrary limit on training
and education hours would do. A few commenters also stated that the 20
percent limit should be eliminated because most programs need only
moderate relief of the 20 percent limit to meet members' training and
development needs. At least one commenter stated that the rule is
unnecessary because the statute does not establish a maximum number of
education and training hours. A few of these commenters also stated
that the waiver approach would create a two-tiered system for programs,
based on whether they receive the waiver.
One commenter suggested raising the limit to 50 percent for all
organizations, to eliminate the need for the waiver process.
Response: AmeriCorps believes that the current 20 percent limit is
appropriate for most programs to ensure that members are primarily
engaged in community service, but that the limit is too stringent for
the types of programs that meet the waiver criteria. While all programs
to some extent serve a dual purpose of community service and providing
members with training and experience, the programs suitable for waivers
may include those that have a dual purpose of community service and
providing members with specific types

[[Page 46028]]

of certification or job preparation and/or focus on recruiting members
directly from the communities being served. Examples of programs for
which the 20 percent limit is not appropriate and may meet the criteria
for a waiver of the limit include Registered Apprenticeship programs,
job training or job readiness programs, programs that include
activities to support member attainment of a GED or high school diploma
or other credentials, or programs that primarily enroll economically
disadvantaged AmeriCorps members and are designed to provide soft
skills or life skills development for those members in addition to
giving them opportunities to serve. AmeriCorps does not interpret the
availability of a waiver as creating a ``two-tiered'' system because
AmeriCorps will review each request for a waiver to determine
eligibility and appropriateness. The waiver will accommodate these
types of specialized programs to allow their participants to serve as
full-time AmeriCorps members.
There will be no additional administrative burden imposed, as
waivers will be submitted as part of the grant application process. The
proposed plan for off-grant-cycle waivers will be streamlined and
administered at the regional office level, so grantees will retain
their consistent point of contact.
Tracking whether hours are spent in education/training activities
versus service is necessary for both the grantee and the agency for
compliance. The use of two lines in a timesheet of service and training
is not overly burdensome.
4. Request for Changes to the Waiver Criteria
Some commenters stated that the criteria for waiving are too
restrictive and that all programs, regardless of type or term length,
should have the opportunity to provide members sufficient hours both to
prepare for service and to enrich their own development. One commenter
stated that the criteria are overly narrow and exclude important
workforce-focused programs and therefore should be eliminated or, at a
minimum, adjusted to include programs that ``utilize a pre-
apprenticeship model'' and focus on ``workforce development.''
A few commenters suggested edits to the waiver criteria including
adding ``or'' after each provision to clarify that they are
alternatives and changing or removing the criterion for ``economically
disadvantaged'' because most members could be considered economically
disadvantaged.
Response: AmeriCorps believes the criteria are appropriately
targeted to the type of programs outlined in the proposed rule. The
listed criteria are intended as alternatives, and that intent is made
clear by listing the ``or'' once before the last criterion, so it is
unnecessary to add ``or'' after every listed criterion.
5. Questions on How the Waiver Process Would Work
A few commenters asked about how the waiver process would work,
including:
<bullet> Whether commissions will have the authority to approve the
waivers for formula programs (and if not, how it would work for
AmeriCorps, given that the agency is planning not to have formula sub-
applications submitted under the eGrants replacement system);
<bullet> Whether the waiver process will include an extra form or
narrative during the grant application process;
<bullet> Whether the applicant will need to specify a percentage
when it requests a waiver; and
<bullet> Whether applicants will be able to request a waiver during
a continuation year (asked because the timing of lining up partnerships
might not coincide with the recompete timeline, but allowing requests
during continuation years adds administrative burden to track which
years a waiver applies to).
Response: For formula programs, State commissions will have the
authority to approve waivers of the 20 percent limit on education and
training hours. Grantees may request waivers in writing as part of
their grant application and receive a decision on the waiver prior to
grant award. If a waiver is requested off grant application cycle, the
grantee would submit it to the regional office.

B. Revising Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.60

1. Support for Proposed Match Scale
A few commenters supported the proposed scale, and particularly
supported increasing the required match percentage based on grant cycle
rather than annually.
Response: AmeriCorps agrees that increasing the match scale based
on grant cycle rather than annually will reduce simplify accounting and
tracking.
2. Opposition to Proposed Match Scale
a. Need for More Match Relief
Several grantees noted that match is a challenge not only for new
and small programs but also for long-term grantees across the country,
as it takes years to cultivate a donor base and donor retention does
not typically occur in perpetuity. Some commenters stated that programs
are not applying for all the funds for which they are eligible, and
that they need, because they cannot raise match. Commenters also noted
that the match requests to date are not a good measure of the need for
match relief because American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) funding was
available for cash match replacement in fiscal years 2021-2023.
Many commenters stated that the proposed delayed match scale only
puts off the consequences of funding loss and grantee destabilization,
because donor giving does not keep pace with rising costs. One
commenter provided citations to several sources stating that charitable
giving has been declining over the past several years.
A few commenters said AmeriCorps programs could still be required
to document match, but that the burden of providing 50 percent for
longstanding programs is unnecessary and overwhelming.
Response: AmeriCorps believes strongly that requiring match is
important because the ability to cultivate and acquire match is a
demonstration of community support and investment. Documentation of
match is essential to assessing compliance with requirements. In
finalizing the existing match scale, AmeriCorps agreed that there is a
point at which match requirements can become destabilizing, but stated
that a 50 percent overall match did not reach that point. However, it
is clear from these and other comments that the existing match scale
and proposed delayed match scale, which both reach a 50 percent overall
match, are not seen as sufficient to prevent grantee destabilization.
For this reason, the final rule adjusts the scale that was proposed to
instead cap the maximum required match at 30 percent, rather than 50
percent.
b. Inflation and Costs Already Increase Required Match
A few commenters noted the impact of inflation, which leads
programs to reduce their size and scope if they are unable to increase
their fundraising and find new sources of match to keep pace with the
increased member living allowance and cost per member service year
(MSY). Some commenters noted that the Biden Administration's
prioritization of raising member living allowances and the maximum cost
per MSY means the amount of match funding increases proportionately
each year, foreclosing organizations from accessing federal funds or
forcing them

[[Page 46029]]

to return unexpended funds when fundraising targets are not realized.
Response: AmeriCorps has been responsive during the Biden
Administration to longstanding and consistent requests to raise the
living allowance and cost per MSY to ensure that programs can
adequately recruit and retain their AmeriCorps members. The final rule
provides some measure of match relief by both decreasing the frequency
of match increases and capping the maximum required match at 30
percent.
c. AmeriCorps' Match Is More Difficult Than Other Federal Agencies'
Commenters stated that, compared to other Federal programs,
AmeriCorps' match percentages are ``misleading'' and ``uniquely high''
because its match is based on total program costs (e.g., a program with
a 50 percent match must raise one dollar for each AmeriCorps dollar it
receives) rather than relative to the Federal share (e.g., a program
with 50 percent match must raise 50 cents for each Federal dollar it
receives).
Response: The National and Community Service Act of 1990, as
amended, specifies that match for the AmeriCorps State and National
programs must be based on the cost of carrying out the programs,
including the costs of member living allowances, employment-related
taxes, health care coverage, and workers' compensation and other
necessary operation costs. See 42 U.S.C. 12571(e)(1).
d. The Proposed Match Scale Would Undermine Programs' Effectiveness
Many commenters stated that the proposed match scale perpetuates a
detrimental regulation that was established to steadily decrease
government investment, but instead undermines outcomes in communities
and deters prospective grantees. Commenters also stated that match
requirements impede organizations' efforts to provide the best
experience for AmeriCorps members. A few commenters argued that raising
and documenting match increases the amount of time program staff must
spend on administrative activities that could be better spent
supporting members and community service.
Response: The AmeriCorps match schedule was not established to
steadily decrease government investment; rather, the match schedule's
purpose was to leverage Federal resources to maximize support from the
private sector and from State and local governments. AmeriCorps
strongly believes that the ability to cultivate and acquire matching
funds is a demonstration of community support and investment.
AmeriCorps continues to believe that an important piece of
sustainability is decreasing reliance on Federal funding and increasing
the capacity of organizations that operate AmeriCorps programs to
assume more of the cost. However, AmeriCorps acknowledges commenters'
concerns regarding the amount of match as a deterrent to prospective
grantees and a challenge for existing grantees that would prefer to
focus more time and energy on attaining program outcomes and providing
members with the best possible experiences. These comments have
contributed to AmeriCorps' decision to adjust the proposed match scale
to one that is less arduous. The final rule provides a match scale with
smaller incremental increases and a lower maximum match of 30 percent.
e. The Proposed Match Scale Increases Burden and Risk
A few commenters stated that the proposed change to frequency that
the scale increases (from every year to every 3 years in a grant period
and reaching 50 percent match in year 16 rather than year 10) provides
only minor, temporary relief for new grantees, but for all grantees,
the match scale poses risks and challenges associated with raising,
tracking, and reporting match. A few commenters said AmeriCorps
programs could still be required to document match, but the burden of a
50 percent match for longstanding programs is unnecessary and
overwhelming.
Response: Grantees must raise, track, and report match under the
existing regulation and as proposed; the final rule reduces the risks
and challenges associated with these activities by reducing the
frequency of the match increases and decreasing the overall maximum
required match.
f. Request for 25 Percent Match in Lieu of Proposed Match Scale
Most of the commenters who addressed revising the match
requirements opposed the proposed scale and instead advocated for a
flat required match of 25 percent, regardless of the year of the grant.
These commenters noted the difficulties that programs--particularly
those in small organizations and those based in marginalized
communities without philanthropic networks--face in meeting match,
forcing them to withdraw or deterring them from applying in the first
place. Commenters asserted that AmeriCorps' emphasis on fiscal
sustainability and diversity of funding streams has deprived some
communities of needed support services by driving some successful
programs out of existence and incentivizing others to transform their
program models to reduce match burden. Commenters stated that capping
match at a flat 25 percent would:
<bullet> Encourage more prospective grantees to apply;
<bullet> Encourage programs to invest in higher living allowances
for members without facing the heightened match requirements that
correspond with higher allowances;
<bullet> Better align with other federal grant programs that
require a flat match rather than a graduated match scale;
<bullet> Reduce burden on new and existing programs by providing
immediate relief;
<bullet> Enhance program efficiency;
<bullet> Improve programs' ability to serve underrepresented
populations;
<bullet> Reduce audit liabilities, as programs turn to the
difficult-to-document in-kind support to meet an increasing match
burden;
<bullet> Simplify the current match scale, which is confusing to
grant applicants;
<bullet> Simplify accounting; and
<bullet> Eliminate the burden on grantees of having to apply for a
match waiver (as long as the 25 percent match is met).
Many commenters reiterated points made in comments that responded
to the Request for Information from Non-Federal Stakeholders: Grantee
Match Requirements (RFI) (87 FR 26740 (May 5, 2022)) in support of a
flat 25 percent match, including that Congress's original intent was
that the Federal share not exceed 75 percent, regardless of the number
of years a grantee has had the grant.
Several commenters noted that programs will continue to raise
outside funds to support their programs if there is a 25 percent flat
match, but the proposed scale imposes unnecessary red tape and wastes
taxpayer resources without improving program outcomes. Commenters also
stated that grantees must necessarily raise more than the 25 percent
match because the current cost per MSY exceeds the funding AmeriCorps
provides, but the time and risk associated with documenting match is
unnecessarily burdensome.
Two commenters responded to the comments requesting a flat 25
percent match and stated their opposition to doing so. One noted that
the ability to obtain match is a testament to a program's integrity,
weeds out programs that are not a cost-effective use of Federal funds,
and keeps programs accountable. The other stated that it would limit
the ability to garner support. A few advocated for keeping the current
scale.

[[Page 46030]]

One commenter suggested a two-tiered system for match to reduce
complexity.
Response: AmeriCorps believes its grantees should be fiscally
sustainable and have diversity of funding streams to ensure the
organizations will be able to continue to meet the needs of their
communities. Raising the match to a flat rate of 25% regardless of
years of funding would conflict with Congress's intention, as reflected
in appropriations laws over the past several fiscal years, for
grantees' share of costs to steadily increase after an initial three-
year period at a 24 percent minimum share requirement. See, e.g.,
Public Law 117-328. The final rule therefore codifies the 24 percent
match requirement for the first three years and includes a steadily
increasing scale. A 25 percent flat match would negatively affect new
applicants and grantees that might benefit from the timing of an
escalating match schedule to allow for resource cultivation and
acquisition.
3. Opposition to Match, Generally
A few commenters asserted that the rationale for requiring match is
not appropriate for AmeriCorps programs. For example, at least one
commenter stated that match scales are based on an investment capital
theory of winning additional donors and developing sustainable funding
sources that is inappropriate for AmeriCorps programs because
AmeriCorps programs fund national service positions and AmeriCorps
exists to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic
engagement. Other commenters stated that a type of ``match'' is already
built into AmeriCorps programs because members are already giving their
time and talents to a degree that provides value far above the cost of
their living allowances and benefits.
Response: Congress determined that match was appropriate for
AmeriCorps State and National Programs. See 42 U.S.C. 12571(e)(1).
Additionally, AmeriCorps continues to believe that decreasing reliance
on Federal funding and increasing the capacity of organizations
operating AmeriCorps programs to assume more of the cost is important
to sustainability.

C. Criteria for Waiving Match Requirements--Sec. 2521.70

1. Support for the Proposed Match Waiver
Commenters stated that the proposal to meet one of four criteria,
rather than meeting all, would make the process less burdensome and
more equitably support communities in need.
Response: AmeriCorps agrees that the proposed alternative criteria
will reduce burden and better address the difficulties in securing
resources that programs serving communities in need might face.
2. Opposition to the Proposed Waiver-Based System
Most who commented on the proposed match waiver criteria stated
that the criteria are an improvement but do not address the underlying
need to reform match requirements, and opposed relying on match waivers
as a means to give grantees relief from the proposed match scale.
Commenters stated that the waiver-based system creates uncertainty for
applicants and complicates their budget planning. A few noted that it
is difficult for grantees to do program outreach and development when
approval of the match waiver is not guaranteed.
Response: AmeriCorps believes strongly that match requirements are
appropriate because the ability to cultivate and acquire match
demonstrates community support and investment. That said, in order to
allow for a diverse portfolio of grantees and applicants, a match
waiver is necessary.
3. Requests To Change Waiver Criteria
Several commenters requested reverting from the proposed criterion
``initial difficulties in developing local funding sources during the
first three years of operations'' to the current criterion, ``lack of
resources at the local level,'' to allow programs in underserved areas
to continue to obtain match relief even though they may be beyond year
three of their grant.
Several commenters suggested adding reference to historical
challenges the program or community might face in securing match
because the organizations that might most need AmeriCorps funding are
often those with smaller staff and resources and less overall capacity
to secure match.
Several commenters suggested replacing the flat $500,000 threshold
with the single audit threshold, because it is updated periodically,
rather than being a static monetary threshold.
Response: The final rule retains the proposed language for the
first three criteria for consistency with the criteria in its other
agency grant-making program, AmeriCorps Seniors. AmeriCorps has
determined that the additional $500,000 threshold is appropriate as a
static monetary threshold, as this is a new waiver criterion.
AmeriCorps may determine at a later date that an adjustment to the
threshold is appropriate, after having had the opportunity to review
its implementation.
4. Comments on Waiver Process
A commenter requested that AmeriCorps allow waiver requests both
early in the application process and during a grant when a grantee is
faced with an unexpected financial situation, and ensure prompt
approval and clear documentation of the waiver.
Response: The proposed process for match waivers will make
allowances for submission both during and outside of the grantmaking
process.

D. Limit on the Number of Terms Individuals May Serve in AmeriCorps
State and National--Sec. 2522.235

1. Support for Removing the Limit on the Number of Terms
Nearly every commenter who remarked on the proposed removal of the
four-term limit supported the proposal. Among the reasons expressed in
support of the removal of the limit were that it would:
<bullet> Increase individuals' ability to serve their community and
engage in workforce development;
<bullet> Make service more equitable by allowing anyone who serves
successfully to earn the value of two education awards;
<bullet> Remove an unnecessary barrier to attracting and enrolling
members.
A few commenters noted that over the past decade, a very small
percentage of individuals are serving more than two full-time terms of
service, but that the term limit should be removed regardless of the
recruiting or economic environment to ensure that positions are
accessible to communities and individuals based on the mission of the
program to engage citizens in addressing community needs. These
commenters also noted that service as a pathway to employment is
critical for individuals with disabilities or other challenges, as
serving multiple terms would allow them to more deeply develop skills
they need to successfully re-enter the workforce. Examples of
situations commenters noted where term limits would be problematic
included:
<bullet> A retired teacher who had already served four terms in a
college-affiliated program but would like to serve more terms as a
high-impact reading tutor;
<bullet> A parent with school-age children who was in a part-time
900-hour service term in a rural county where part-time professional
positions and after-school childcare options were extremely limited,
and continued service would have allowed her to both maintain her
professional skills and be at home with

[[Page 46031]]

her children when they were out of school;
<bullet> A member who started serving as a high school senior then,
due to her service, decided to change her major and become a teacher
but already served four terms and so could not continue to serve
through the remainder of her preparation to become a public school
teacher; and
<bullet> College students who, because they are juggling education
and work commitments, can only serve in less-than-full-time AmeriCorps
positions, and would like to serve more than four terms over the course
of their education.
Commenters noted that people may come to AmeriCorps at a wide range
of ages, and a term limit can keep people from returning to service and
benefitting from the skill development and community building they need
at a particular life stage--whether post-high school or -college, job
transitions, parenthood, retirement, etc., if they served multiple
terms at a younger age. Programs sometimes lose their most effective,
experienced members because they have reached their four-term limit. A
number of commenters with rural-serving programs and a smaller pool of
potential service candidates noted the importance of returning members
to the success of their program, including in building trust with
partners and communities.
Many commenters expressed the benefits to removing the limitation
on terms of service, including:
<bullet> Members serving multiple terms gain experience with the
programs and develop into potential program coordinators, managers, and
state or national officers, as well as becoming advocates for national
service;
<bullet> Members serving multiple terms support and mentor new
members and those who have limited service or job experience, offering
essential training, professionalism, and perspectives.
Response: AmeriCorps does not seek to limit the number of terms a
member can serve; rather it seeks to adjust the limitation on the
number of terms for which agency resources can be used. The final rule
limits the use of agency resources that support a member to the number
of terms needed to attain the aggregate value of two full-time
education awards. This aligns the time AmeriCorps resources contribute
to benefits with the time required to attain the value of two full-time
education awards and safeguards taxpayer funds. Should a member wish to
serve beyond that limitation, they could do so, but without the grantee
using AmeriCorps resources (direct investment, matching funds,
education award) to support them.
2. Request for Clarification That Service Not Be Limited to the Number
of Terms To Attain Two Education Awards
Several commenters requested clarification of whether members may
elect to serve additional terms after they have earned the aggregate
value of two full-time education awards, because the proposed
regulation, as written, could unintentionally be interpreted to prevent
members from continuing to serve once they have attained that aggregate
value. Under that interpretation, members could not even serve the
currently permitted four full-time terms. A few commenters provided
examples of members who have served the four full-time terms and noted
the negative effect this interpretation would have on programs' ability
to recruit and retain members.
Several commenters stated that, in their experience, only a few
members choose to return to service beyond their initial two years (one
commenter estimated less than 2 percent of members serve more than two
terms), but those that do are exceptionally valuable for the programs,
leveraging their prior service experience to assume leadership roles
and maintain continuity in programs and service, while maximizing their
professional development experience. Commenters noted that for a select
number of individuals, particularly those with the most barriers to
workforce success, more than two full-time terms may be needed for the
member to step seamlessly into their next workplace (or other) role.
A commenter pointed out that there is no term limit in the statute.
Commenters suggested that AmeriCorps and State service commissions can
take certain steps to ensure that removal of the term limit is not
abused, including working with programs to ensure they are not relying
on members serving multiple terms of service, that no organizational
grantee has a disproportionate number of long-term participants, and
that all long-term participants are truly carrying out vital service to
the community.
Response: The final rule clarifies that the number of terms an
individual may serve are unlimited.
3. Whether Other Benefits Can Be Earned After Attaining the Value of
Two Full-Time Education Awards
A few commenters stated their understanding that removal of the
term limit would allow individuals who receive two full-time education
awards to receive the other benefits of serving in AmeriCorps, such as
earning a living allowance, if they continue to serve.
Response: The final rule clarifies that AmeriCorps funds the
benefits of serving in AmeriCorps, such as the living allowance, up to
the number of terms needed to attain the aggregate value of two full-
time education awards. This approach aligns the time AmeriCorps
resources contribute to benefits with the time required to attain the
value of two full-time education awards and safeguards taxpayer funds.
Programs may choose to continue to fund benefits from non-AmeriCorps
resources for members who serve beyond that time.

IV. Changes From Proposed to Final

The final rule makes a change to the proposed match scale and
clarifies the parameters for unlimited member terms in response to
comments. The final rule also makes two technical updates to replace an
outdated provision and outdated citations. Each of these is described
below.

A. Final Match Schedule at Sec. 2521.60

At Sec. 2521.60(a), the final rule adjusts the proposed match
scale. AmeriCorps proposed a match scale that would have increased more
gradually than the existing required match until it reached 50 percent
of the overall program cost by the sixteenth year. In response to the
comments, which were nearly unanimous in their assertion that the
proposed scale would not provide sufficient match relief, the final
rule adjusts the match to an even less abrupt and steep match scale,
establishing a required minimum match of 30 percent of the overall
program cost by the tenth year and beyond. The final rule retains the
proposed rule's approach of increasing match less often (by grant
period, rather than annually) to reduce the burden on grantees of
raising, tracking, and reporting increasing annual percentages. It
further simplifies the match scale by establishing the highest minimum
required match in year 10, rather than year 16, relieving grantees of
the need to track and keep abreast of two additional increases in the
minimum match. Specifically, the proposed rule would have established
the following match schedule:

[[Page 46032]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Match percent by grant period and years
Grant period ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Years............................ 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16 and beyond.
Minimum overall share percentage....... 24 28 32 38 44 50.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule establishes the following match schedule, to provide
grantees with match relief and minimize any deterrent the current match
scale may have on prospective grantees that have less access to
matching funds (e.g., those in geographic areas where there is not a
philanthropic community):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Match percent by grant period and years
Grant period ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Second Third Fourth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years.............................. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 and beyond.
Minimum overall share percentage... 24 26 28 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These changes to the proposed match schedule are intended to reduce
burden and are not designed or intended to decrease the number of
members serving or shift the investment from grantee match to agency
contribution. As noted in the proposed rule, lowering the match amount
does not change the cost to run a strong AmeriCorps program. Thus,
grantees will continue to have to raise additional funds beyond the
required match generally, for the sustainability of their organization,
but they will no longer be in danger of having to return AmeriCorps
funds at the end of their grants if they fail to raise match that is so
far in excess of the 25 percent indicated by statutory text. To the
extent they are able, grantees are strongly encouraged to raise funding
beyond the required match amount to extend the reach of national
service as much as possible.

B. Clarification on Unlimited Number of Terms

The final rule clarifies the proposed rule's language, which stated
that the number of terms a member may serve is limited to the number of
terms needed to attain the aggregate value of two full-time education
awards. As described in the response to comments, the final rule more
explicitly states that an individual may continue to serve beyond that
point, but that AmeriCorps will fund the member benefits only to that
point. The final rule further clarifies that the grantee organization
may choose to fund members' benefits, such as the living allowance, for
any additional terms beyond that point. This approach aligns the time
AmeriCorps resources contribute to benefits with the time required to
attain the value of two full-time education awards and safeguards
taxpayer funds.

C. Updates to Outdated Provisions/Citations

The final rule deletes outdated provisions that limited the Federal
share of a member's living allowance to 85 percent of the minimum
required living allowance. These provisions are outdated because the
Serve America Act eliminated the requirement for grantees to match 15%
of the member living allowance and member support cost. See Public Law
111-13, section 1315(1)(B)-(D) (striking what was then paragraph (a)(2)
of 42 U.S.C. 12594). The provisions appeared at Sec. Sec.
2521.45(a)(1), 2521.60(a), and 2522.240(b)(6)(i) and (iii).
Additionally, the final rule updates a few cross-references to reflect
new section designations in the National Service Trust Education Awards
final rule at 88 FR 447.21 (July 13, 2023).

V. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the
Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), AmeriCorps certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Most AmeriCorps State and National grantees are State
commissions and organizations that do not meet the definition of a
small entity. Therefore, AmeriCorps has not performed the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for rules that are expected to
have such results.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this
regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures in Federal, State, local, or Tribal
Governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100
million on the private sector.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless the collections of information display valid control
numbers. The application for AmeriCorps State and National grants are
authorized under OMB Control Number 3045-0047, which expires September
30, 2026. Applicants for grants who would like to request a waiver
under this proposed rule would do so as part of the application
process, but the request is exempted from the definition of
``information'' subject to PRA requirements because it is a simple
acknowledgment that the applicant is requesting a waiver based on one
of the criteria. See 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1). Therefore, this proposed rule
does not affect require submission of a revision of this information
collection.

[[Page 46033]]

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
Governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rulemaking does not have any
federalism implications, as described above.

F. Takings (Executive Order 12630)

This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 because this rule
does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth
Amendment or involve a compensable ``taking.'' A takings implication
assessment is not required.

G. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rulemaking: (a) meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (b) meets the
criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175)

AmeriCorps recognizes the inherent sovereignty of Indian Tribes and
their right to self-governance. We have evaluated this rulemaking under
our consultation policy and the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and
determined that this rule does not impose substantial direct effects on
federally recognized Tribes.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 2520

Grant programs--social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2521

Grant programs--social programs, Volunteers.

45 CFR Part 2522

Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volunteers.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 42
U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service
amends Chapter XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 2520--GENERAL PROVISIONS: AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595.

0
2. Amend Sec. 2520.5 by adding in alphabetical order the definition
``AmeriCorps'' to read as follows:

Sec. 2520.5 What definitions apply to this part?

AmeriCorps means the Corporation for National and Community
Service, established pursuant to section 191 of the National and
Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12651, which
operates as AmeriCorps.
* * * * *

Sec. Sec. 2520.10 through 2520.65 [Amended]

0
3. In Sec. Sec. 2520.10 through 2520.65:
0
a. Remove the words ``the Corporation'' wherever they appear and add in
their place the word ``AmeriCorps''; and
0
b. Remove the word ``Corporation'' and add in its place the word
``AmeriCorps''.

0
4. Revise and republish Sec. 2520.50 to read as follows:

Sec. 2520.50 How much time may AmeriCorps members in my program spend
in education and training activities?

(a) No more than 20 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps
member service hours in your program, as reflected in the member
enrollments in the National Service Trust, may be spent in education
and training activities, unless AmeriCorps grants a waiver under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Capacity-building activities and direct service activities do
not count towards the 20 percent cap on education and training
activities.
(c) AmeriCorps may waive the limit in paragraph (a) of this section
to allow up to 50 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps member
service hours in your program to be spent in education and training
activities if your program:
(1) Is a Registered Apprenticeship program;
(2) Is a job training or job readiness program;
(3) Includes activities to support member attainment of a GED or
high school diploma or occupational, technical, or safety credentials;
or
(4) Primarily enrolls economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps members
and employs a program design that also includes soft skills or life
skills development.

PART 2521--ELIGIBLE AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND
TYPES OF GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR AWARD

0
5. The authority for part 2521 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595

0
6. Amend Sec. 2521.5 by adding in alphabetical order the definition
``AmeriCorps'' to read as follows:

Sec. 2521.5 What definitions apply to this part?

Sec. Sec. 2521.10 through 2521.95 [Amended]

0
7. In Sec. Sec. 2521.10 through 2521.95:
0
a. Remove the words ``the Corporation'' and add in their place the word
``AmeriCorps''.
0
b. Remove the word ``Corporation'' and add in its place the word
``AmeriCorps''.

0
8. In Sec. 2521.45, revise and republish paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 2521.45 What are the limitations on the Federal government's
share of program costs?

The limitations on the Federal government's share are different--in
type and amount--for member support costs and program operating costs.
(a) Member support: The Federal share, including AmeriCorps and
other Federal funds, of member support costs, which include the living
allowance required under Sec. 2522.240(b)(1) of this chapter, FICA,
unemployment insurance (if required under State law), and worker's
compensation (if required under State law), is limited as follows:
(1) If you are a professional corps described in Sec.
2522.240(b)(2)(i) of this chapter, you may not use AmeriCorps funds for
the living allowance.
(2) Your share of member support costs must be non-Federal cash.
(3) AmeriCorps's share of health care costs may not exceed 85
percent.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec. 2521.60, revise and republish the introductory text, and
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 2521.60 What will my share of program costs be?

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if your
program continues

[[Page 46034]]

to receive funding after an initial three-year grant period, you must
continue to meet the minimum requirements in Sec. 2521.45 of this
part. In addition, your required share of program costs, including
member support and operating costs, will incrementally increase each
grant period to a 30 percent overall share by the fourth grant period
and beyond (tenth year and any year thereafter that you receive a
grant), without a break in funding of five years or more.
(a) Minimum Organization Share: (1) Subject to the requirements of
Sec. 2521.45 of this part, and except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, your overall share of program costs will increase as of
the fourth consecutive year that you receive a grant, according to the
following timetable:

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Timetable for Minimum Organization Share
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Match percent by grant period and years
Grant period ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Second Third Fourth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant years........................ 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 and beyond.
Minimum operating costs percentage. 33 33 33 33.
Minimum overall share percentage... 24 26 28 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) A State commission may meet its match based on the aggregate of
its grantees' individual match requirements.
(b) Alternative match requirements: If your program is unable to
meet the match requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section
and it is located in a rural or severely economically distressed
community, you may apply to AmeriCorps for a waiver that would decrease
the level of your required match.
* * * * *

0
10. Revise and republish Sec. 2521.70 to read as follows:

Sec. 2521.70 To what extent may AmeriCorps waive the matching
requirements in Sec. Sec. 2521.45 and 2521.60 of this part?

(a) AmeriCorps may waive, in whole or in part, the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 2521.45 and 2521.60 if AmeriCorps determines that a waiver
would be equitable because of a lack of available financial resources
at the local level.
(b) If you are requesting a waiver, you must demonstrate:
(1) Initial difficulties in the development of local funding
sources during the first three years of operations; or
(2) An economic downturn, the occurrence of a natural disaster, or
similar events in the service area that severely restrict or reduce
sources of local funding support; or
(3) The unexpected discontinuation of local support from one or
more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years; or
(4) Organizational revenue of less than $500,000.
(c) You must provide with your waiver request:
(1) A description of the efforts you have made to raise matching
resources; and
(2) A request for the specific amount of match you are asking
AmeriCorps to waive; and
(3) A budget and budget narrative that reflect the requested level
in matching resources.

PART 2522--AMERICORPS PARTICIPANTS, PROGRAMS, AND APPLICANTS

0
11. The authority for part 2522 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595; 12651b-12651d; E.O. 13331, 69
FR 9911, Sec. 1612, Pub. L. 111-13.

0
12. Amend Sec. 2522.10 by adding in alphabetical order the definition
``AmeriCorps'' to read as follows:

Sec. 2522.10 What definitions apply to this part?

Sec. Sec. 2522.100 through 2522.950 [Amended]

0
13. In Sec. Sec. 2522.100 through 2522.950:
0
a. Remove the words ``the Corporation'' and add in their place the word
``AmeriCorps''.
0
b. Remove the words ``a Corporation'' and add in their place the words
``an AmeriCorps''.
0
c. Remove the word ``Corporation'' and add in its place the word
``AmeriCorps''.
0
d. Remove the words ``the Corporation's'' and add in their place the
word ``AmeriCorps' ''.

Sec. 2522.220 [Amended]

0
14. In Sec. 2522.220:
0
a. In paragraph (b), remove the citation ``Sec. 2526.15'' and add in
its place the citation in its place the citation ``Sec. 2525.15'';
0
b. In paragraph (f), remove the citation ``Sec. 2526.50(a)'' and add
in its place the citation in its place the citation ``Sec.
2525.50(a)''.

0
15. Revise Sec. 2522.235 to read as follows:

Sec. 2522.235 Is there a limit on the number of terms an individual
may serve in an AmeriCorps State and National program?

The number of terms an individual may serve in an AmeriCorps State
and National program are not limited, but an individual may attain only
the aggregate value of two full-time education awards and AmeriCorps
will fund the benefits described in Sec. Sec. 2522.240 through
2522.250 only for the number of terms needed to attain the aggregate
value of two full-time education awards. Grantees may choose to fund
benefits for any additional terms.

0
16. In Sec. 2522.240, revise paragraphs (a) and (b)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec. 2522.240 What financial benefits do AmeriCorps participants
serving in approved AmeriCorps positions receive?

(a) AmeriCorps education awards. An individual serving in an
approved AmeriCorps State and National position may receive an
education award from the National Service Trust upon successful
completion of their terms of service as defined in Sec. 2522.220,
consistent with the limitations in Sec. 2526.50.
(b) * * *
(6) Limitation on Federal share. No AmeriCorps or other Federal
funds may be used to pay for a portion of the living allowance for
professional corps

[[Page 46035]]

described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *

Fernando Laguarda,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-10030 Filed 5-24-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 28, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.