46024 - Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 103/Tuesday, May 28, 2024

46024

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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outdated citations.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 EAppel@

americorps.gov, (202) 967–5070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

II. Overview of Rule

A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit

on Education and Training Activities—

§ 2520.50

B. Revising Match Requirements—

§ 2521.60

C. Criteria for Waiving Match

Requirements—§ 2521.70

D. Limit on Number of Terms an

Individual May Serve in AmeriCorps

State and National—§ 2522.235

III. Comments on Proposed Rule and

Responses

A. Waiver of the Current 20 Percent Limit

on Education and Training Activities—

§ 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—

§ 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—§ 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—§ 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 § 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—§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46025

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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.

• 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—

§ 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.

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46026

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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—§ 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—§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46027

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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—§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46028

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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—

§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46029

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46030

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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—§ 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—§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46031

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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

• 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

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 § 2521.60

At § 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:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46032

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Grant period

Match percent by grant period and years

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):

Grant period

Match percent by grant period and years

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

§§ 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46033

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2520

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595.

■ 2. Amend § 2520.5 by adding in

alphabetical order the definition

‘‘AmeriCorps’’ to read as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§§ 2520.10 through 2520.65 [Amended]

■ 3. In §§ 2520.10 through 2520.65:

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘the

Corporation’’ wherever they appear and

add in their place the word

‘‘AmeriCorps’’; and

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘Corporation’’

and add in its place the word

‘‘AmeriCorps’’.

■ 4. Revise and republish § 2520.50 to

read as follows:

§ 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.

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

■ 5. The authority for part 2521

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595

■ 6. Amend § 2521.5 by adding in

alphabetical order the definition

‘‘AmeriCorps’’ to read as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§§ 2521.10 through 2521.95 [Amended]

■ 7. In §§ 2521.10 through 2521.95:

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘the

Corporation’’ and add in their place the

word ‘‘AmeriCorps’’.

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘Corporation’’

and add in its place the word

‘‘AmeriCorps’’.

■ 8. In § 2521.45, revise and republish

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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 § 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.

* * * * *

■ 9. In § 2521.60, revise and republish

the introductory text, and paragraphs (a)

and (b) to read as follows:

§ 2521.60 What will my share of program

costs be?

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of

this section, if your program continues

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46034

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

to receive funding after an initial three-

year grant period, you must continue to

meet the minimum requirements in

§ 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 § 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:

ABLE

ARAGRAPH

(a)—T

IMETABLE FOR

INIMUM

RGANIZATION

HARE

Grant period

Match percent by grant period and years

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.

* * * * *

■ 10. Revise and republish § 2521.70 to

read as follows:

§ 2521.70 To what extent may AmeriCorps

waive the matching requirements in

§§ 2521.45 and 2521.60 of this part?

(a) AmeriCorps may waive, in whole

or in part, the requirements of

§§ 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.

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

■ 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.

■ 12. Amend § 2522.10 by adding in

alphabetical order the definition

‘‘AmeriCorps’’ to read as follows:

§ 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.

* * * * *

§§ 2522.100 through 2522.950 [Amended]

■ 13. In §§ 2522.100 through 2522.950:

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘the

Corporation’’ and add in their place the

word ‘‘AmeriCorps’’.

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘a Corporation’’

and add in their place the words ‘‘an

AmeriCorps’’.

■ c. Remove the word ‘‘Corporation’’

and add in its place the word

‘‘AmeriCorps’’.

■ d. Remove the words ‘‘the

Corporation’s’’ and add in their place

the word ‘‘AmeriCorps’ ’’.

§ 2522.220 [Amended]

■ 14. In § 2522.220:

■ a. In paragraph (b), remove the

citation ‘‘§ 2526.15’’ and add in its place

the citation in its place the citation

‘‘§ 2525.15’’;

■ b. In paragraph (f), remove the citation

‘‘§ 2526.50(a)’’ and add in its place the

citation in its place the citation

‘‘§ 2525.50(a)’’.

■ 15. Revise § 2522.235 to read as

follows:

§ 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 §§ 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.

■ 16. In § 2522.240, revise paragraphs

(a) and (b)(6) to read as follows:

§ 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 § 2522.220,

consistent with the limitations in

§ 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

46035

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[RTID 0648–XD481]

Fisheries Off West Coast States;

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;

Amendment 21 to the Coastal Pelagic

Species Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY

: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION

: Notice of agency decision of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan.

SUMMARY

: On May 20, 2024, the

Regional Administrator of NMFS West

Coast Region, with the concurrence of

the Assistant Administrator for NMFS,

approved amendment 21 to the Coastal

Pelagic Species Fishery Management

Plan (CPS FMP). Amendment 21

implements a number of non-

substantive, administrative changes to

the CPS FMP including defining

acronyms upon first use, adding

hyperlinks, removing repetitive

language, and rearranging sections for

clarity and logical sequence. These

changes, colloquially referred to as

‘‘housekeeping’’ changes, do not change

the management of the fishery. This

amendment is intended to promote the

goals and objectives of the Magnuson-

Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, the CPS FMP, and

other applicable laws.

DATES

: Amendment 21 was approved on

May 20, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Taylor Debevec, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, NMFS, (562) 980–4066,

[email protected] or Jessi

Doerpinghaus, Staff Officer, Pacific

Fishery Management Council, (503)

820–2415, jessi.doerpinghaus@

noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: The CPS

fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic

zone off the West Coast is managed

under the CPS FMP. The Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council)

developed the CPS FMP pursuant to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801

et seq.). The Secretary of Commerce

approved the CPS FMP and

implemented the provisions of the plan

through regulations at 50 CFR part 660,

subpart I. Species managed under the

CPS FMP include Pacific sardine,

Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel,

northern anchovy, market squid, and

krill.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires

each regional fishery management

council to submit any amendment to an

FMP to NMFS for review and approval,

disapproval, or partial approval. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires

that NMFS, upon receiving an

amendment to an FMP, immediately

publish notification in the Federal

available for public review and

comment. NMFS published a notice of

availability (NOA) of amendment 21 on

February 20, 2024 (89 FR 12810) with a

comment period ending on April 22,

2024. NMFS received no public

comments on the NOA and approved

the amendment on May 20, 2024, with

no changes to the proposed amendment

text.

Amendment 21, colloquially referred

to as a ‘‘housekeeping’’ amendment,

made edits to the CPS FMP as

amendment document for clarity and

content and made no changes to the

management of CPS fisheries. In

addition to minor editorial clarifications

in the FMP, most of the proposed

changes fall into the following

categories: abbreviations and acronyms,

hyperlinks, chub mackerel, headings

and structure, and organizational

terminology.

Additional background on this

amendment can be found in the NOA.

A complete list of the changes in

amendment 21 to the CPS FMP is

available on the Council website at

https://www.pcouncil.org/actions/

housekeeping-fmp-amendment/.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: May 21, 2024.

Samuel D. Rauch, III,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Regulatory Programs, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2024–11538 Filed 5–24–24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 May 24, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28MYR1.SGM 28MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES