[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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has since been deleted, and updates to outdated citations.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 
[email protected], (202) 606-6667; or Elizabeth Appel, 
Associate General Counsel, at [email protected], (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:
     Is a Registered Apprenticeship program, or
     Is a job training or job readiness program, or
     Includes activities to support member attainment of a GED 
or high school diploma or occupational, technical, or safety 
credentials, or

[[Page 46025]]

     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) https://voicesforservice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICF_AmeriCorps-and-Senior-Corps_Quantifying-the-Impact_FINAL.pdf (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:
     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;
     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;
     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;
     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:
     The intent of AmeriCorps is to provide community service 
rather than training;
     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;
     The current 20 percent limit is adequate for any program 
whose prime purpose is service; and
     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:
     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);
     Whether the waiver process will include an extra form or 
narrative during the grant application process;
     Whether the applicant will need to specify a percentage 
when it requests a waiver; and
     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:
     Encourage more prospective grantees to apply;
     Encourage programs to invest in higher living allowances 
for members without facing the heightened match requirements that 
correspond with higher allowances;
     Better align with other federal grant programs that 
require a flat match rather than a graduated match scale;
     Reduce burden on new and existing programs by providing 
immediate relief;
     Enhance program efficiency;
     Improve programs' ability to serve underrepresented 
populations;
     Reduce audit liabilities, as programs turn to the 
difficult-to-document in-kind support to meet an increasing match 
burden;
     Simplify the current match scale, which is confusing to 
grant applicants;
     Simplify accounting; and
     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:
     Increase individuals' ability to serve their community and 
engage in workforce development;
     Make service more equitable by allowing anyone who serves 
successfully to earn the value of two education awards;
     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:
     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;
     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;
     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
     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:
     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;
     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?

    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.  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?

    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.  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