53752 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

State and county Location and case 

No. 

Date and name of newspaper 

where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification 

Community 

No. 

Harris ................ Unincorporated 

areas of Harris 

County (08–06– 

0268P).

August 18, 2008; August 25, 

2008; Houston Chronicle.

The Honorable Ed Emmett, Harris County 

Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, 

Houston, TX 77002.

December 23, 2008 ........ 480287 

Utah: Davis .............. City of Kaysville (08– 

08–0369P).

August 21, 2008; August 28, 

2008; Standard Examiner.

The Honorable Neka Roundy, Mayor, City 

of Kaysville, 23 East Center Street, 

Kaysville, UT 84037.

December 26, 2008 ........ 490046 

Virginia: Fauquier .... Unincorporated 

areas of Fauquier 

County (08–03– 

0544P).

August 13, 2008; August 20, 

2008; Fauquier Times Democrat.

The Honorable Chester Stribling, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Fauquier 

County, 10 Hotel Street, Warrenton, VA 

20186.

July 31, 2008 .................. 510055 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

David I. Maurstad, 

Federal Insurance Administrator of the 

National Flood Insurance Program, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. E8–21689 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

45 CFR Parts 2510, 2513, 2516, 2517, 

2520, 2521, 2522, 2523, 2524, 2540, 

2541, and 2550 

RIN 3045–AA23 

AmeriCorps National Service Program 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (‘‘the 

Corporation’’) is issuing several 

amendments to existing provisions 

relating to the AmeriCorps national 

service program and adding rules to 

clarify the Corporation’s prohibition on 

making false or misleading statements 

and requirements for participant 

evaluations, living allowance 

disbursements, multiple applications for 

the same project, use of national service 

insignia, and other requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 17, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Borgstrom, Docket Manager, 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service, (202) 606–6930, 

TDD (202) 606–3472. Persons with 

visual impairments may request this 

rule in an alternate format. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Topics 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments 

III. Specifics of Final Rule and Analysis of 

Comments 

A. Definition of Participant 

B. Prohibited Activities: Voter Registration 

C. Participant Evaluations and Eligibility 

To Serve a Second Term of Service 

D. Living Allowance Disbursements 

E. Waiver of Living Allowance by a 

Participant 

F. Applications for the Same Project 

G. Performance Measures 

H. Civil Rights 

I. Use of National Service Insignia 

J. Disqualification and Forfeiture Based on 

False or Misleading Statements 

K. Inspector General Access to Grantee 

Records 

L. State Commission Composition 

Requirements 

M. State Plans 

IV. Summary of Redesignations 

V. Effective Dates 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

Under the National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 (‘‘NCSA’’ or ‘‘the 

Act’’), the Corporation makes grants to 

support national and community service 

through the AmeriCorps program. In 

addition, the Corporation, through the 

National Service Trust, provides 

educational awards to, and certain 

interest payments on behalf of, 

AmeriCorps participants who 

successfully complete a term of service 

in an approved national service 

position. 

On May 20, 2003, the Corporation’s 

Board of Directors (‘‘the Board’’) 

approved a report issued by the Board’s 

Grant-making Task Force in which the 

Task Force recommended that the 

Corporation undertake efforts to 

streamline and improve our current 

grant-making processes. Among other 

actions, the Task Force recommended 

that the Corporation update the grantmaking review and selection criteria, 

simplify the application process, 

evaluate the Corporation’s grant 

requirements and assess whether 

requirements should and could be 

changed, and eliminate or streamline 

annual guidance. 

On February 27, 2004, President Bush 

issued Executive Order 13331 aimed at 

making the national and community 

service program better able to engage 

Americans in volunteering, more 

responsive to State and local needs, 

more accountable and effective, and 

more accessible to community 

organizations, including faith-based 

organizations. The Executive Order 

directed the Corporation to review and 

modify its policies as necessary to 

accomplish these goals. 

This rulemaking is the second of two, 

originally initiated in 2004. The first 

rulemaking focused on sustainability 

and the limitation on the Federal share 

of program costs. The first rulemaking 

was completed in July, 2005, and 

became effective September, 2005. This 

rulemaking is intended chiefly to clarify 

several changes made in the first 

rulemaking, streamline and improve our 

current grant-making processes, 

strengthen accountability, and 

otherwise improve upon the operations 

of the AmeriCorps State and National 

program. 

II. Public Comments 

The Corporation published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register of 

November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64970) with 

a 60-day comment period. In addition to 

accepting comments in writing, the 

Corporation held two conference calls. 

During the public comment period, the 

Corporation received 3 written 

comments and 5 oral comments from 

grantees, the Corporation’s Inspector 

General, and other interested parties. 

The comments expressed views on 

the merits of particular sections of the 

proposed regulations, as well as some 

broader policy statements and issues. 

Acknowledging that there are strong 

views on, and competing legitimate 

public policy interests relating to, the 

issues in this rulemaking, the 

Corporation has carefully considered all 

of the comments on the proposed 

regulations. 

The Corporation has summarized 

below the major comments received on 

the proposed regulatory changes, and 

has described the changes we made in 

the final regulatory text in response to 

the comments received. In addition to 

the more substantive comments below, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53753 

the Corporation received some editorial 

suggestions, some of which we have 

adopted. The Corporation has also made 

minor editorial changes to better 

organize the regulatory text. Finally, the 

Corporation received some comments 

on issues outside the scope of the 

proposed rule which the Corporation 

does not address in the discussion that 

follows. 

III. Specifics of the Final Rule and 

Analysis of Comments 

As discussed in more detail below, 

the final rule: 

• Amends the definition of the term 

participant to acknowledge the 

frequently-used term member as 

synonymous; 

• Adds voter registration to the list of 

prohibited activities for AmeriCorps 

members and staff while attributing 

time to the AmeriCorps program; 

• Removes the requirement that 

grantees conduct mid-term evaluations 

on AmeriCorps members who leave 

service early; 

• Changes the requirements 

surrounding end-of-term evaluations to 

clarify that completion of service hours 

is not necessarily required in order for 

a member’s service to be considered 

satisfactory; 

• Clarifies that a release ‘‘for cause’’ 

is not a per se disqualification for 

serving a second term of service; 

• Specifies the manner in which 

grantees must disburse living 

allowances to members; 

• Clarifies a member’s ability to 

waive the living allowance; 

• Codifies the circumstances under 

which a program may submit more than 

one application to the Corporation for 

the same project; 

• Removes the requirement that 

grantees individually report on endoutcomes; 

• Codifies the Civil Rights notice 

requirements for grantees; 

• Specifies penalties for using the 

Corporation’s national service insignia 

without the Corporation’s authorization; 

• Specifies the consequences for 

making a false or misleading statement 

to the Corporation; 

• Reinforces the Inspector General’s 

access to grantee records; 

• Amends the State Commission 

composition requirements to conform 

them to statutory requirements; and 

• Consolidates the requirements for 

State Plans. 

A. Definition of ‘‘Participant’’ 

(§ 2510.20) 

This rule amends the definition of the 

term participant to acknowledge the 

frequently-used term member as 

synonymous. 

B. Prohibited Activities: Voter 

Registration (§ 2520.65) 

In 1994, the Corporation issued 

regulations in part 2520 regarding 

prohibited activities for AmeriCorps 

members. In 2002, the Corporation 

strengthened the list of prohibited 

activities by adding items from subregulatory grant provisions. At that 

time, the Corporation inadvertently 

omitted the sub-regulatory prohibition 

on AmeriCorps members engaging in 

voter registration in rulemaking. This 

rule adds this longstanding prohibition 

to our regulations. 

C. Participant Evaluations and 

Eligibility To Serve a Second Term of 

Service (§ 2522.220) 

Mid-term Evaluations 

Our regulations formerly required 

programs to conduct end-of-term and 

mid-term evaluations on AmeriCorps 

participants. Due to the fact that 

participants occasionally leave service 

early, either for cause or for compelling 

personal circumstances, the Corporation 

has determined that it is not always 

practicable or possible for a program to 

perform an official review of a 

participant’s performance in the middle 

of the term. This rule removes the 

requirement that programs conduct midterm evaluations for those participants 

who leave AmeriCorps service early. 

Please note that end-of-term evaluations 

are required for all participants, 

regardless of whether they leave early or 

on time. 

One commenter asked for clarification 

on the timing of and reason for leaving 

early that would result in a program not 

being required to conduct a mid-term 

evaluation. Essentially, programs are not 

required to conduct a mid-term 

evaluation if the member leaves before 

the mid-term evaluation would have 

otherwise reasonably occurred. The 

reason for the member’s departure is not 

relevant. 

Another commenter asked, in a 

situation in which a member transfers 

from one program to another, whether 

the second program is obligated to 

obtain the mid-term evaluation from the 

first program, if there was one. The 

Corporation will address this question 

in sub-regulatory guidance. 

The Corporation also wishes to clarify 

its intent with regard to the 

documentation of mid-term evaluations. 

We require programs to engage in midterm evaluations, but have not provided 

guidance as to the structure or content 

of these reviews. We expect programs to 

tailor mid-term evaluations to fit the 

particular needs of the individual 

program. Likewise, while we require 

that a program document that a midterm evaluation occurred, there is no 

specific required format for this 

documentation. Rather, the grantee 

should maintain documentation for 

each member that it has determined to 

be helpful to the program in conducting 

the end-of-term evaluation, whether that 

be a rating system, a narrative, notes 

from the mid-term evaluation interview, 

or other documentation. 

End-of-Term Evaluations and Eligibility 

To Serve a Second Term of Service 

The Corporation’s regulations require 

grantees to conduct an end-of-term 

evaluation for each AmeriCorps 

participant. The purpose of this 

evaluation is to answer two questions: 

(1) Whether the participant is eligible to 

receive an education award; and (2) 

Whether the participant is eligible to 

serve a subsequent term of service. 

To answer the first question, we look 

to Section 146(a) of the Act, which 

states that a participant is eligible to 

receive an education award only if the 

participant ‘‘successfully completes the 

required term of service’’ and Section 

147(c), which states that a participant 

released for compelling personal 

circumstances is eligible to receive ‘‘that 

portion of an education award * * * 

that corresponds to the quantity of the 

term of service actually completed.’’ 

The second question is governed by 

Section 138(c) of the Act, which states 

that a participant is only eligible to 

serve a subsequent term of service if the 

participant ‘‘performed satisfactorily in 

[the] first term of service.’’ Section 

138(f) of the Act directs the Corporation 

to ‘‘issue regulations regarding the 

manner and criteria by which the 

service of a participant shall be 

evaluated to determine whether the 

service is satisfactory and successful for 

purposes of eligibility for a second term 

of service.’’ 

Pursuant to this section, the 

Corporation previously issued 

regulations stating that, in determining 

whether a participant’s performance 

was satisfactory, the program must 

assess, among other things, whether the 

participant satisfactorily completed 

assignments, tasks, or projects and 

whether the participant completed the 

required number of hours for the term 

of service. (45 CFR 2522.220(d)). 

The Corporation did not intend to 

suggest that completion of service hours 

is a prerequisite for a determination that 

a participant served satisfactorily. On 

the contrary, an individual released for 

cause may, under some circumstances, 

be considered to have served 

satisfactorily and thereby be eligible to 

serve a subsequent term. As we stated 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53754 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

in the preamble to the proposed rule in 

1999, ‘‘a release for cause may cover a 

wide variety of circumstances and does 

not necessarily mean that a participant 

has engaged in wrongdoing or 

misconduct.’’ (64 FR 17302). 

Furthermore, as provided in our longstanding AmeriCorps grant provisions, 

‘‘a member who is released for cause 

from a first term for personal reasons 

* * * but who, otherwise, was 

performing well up until the time [the 

member] decided to leave, would not be 

disqualified for a second term so long as 

[the member] received a satisfactory 

performance evaluation for the period 

* * * served.’’ (2007 AmeriCorps Grant 

Provisions, IV.G.1). 

The final rule amends the 

Corporation’s regulations to clarify that 

those participants who are released for 

cause but who nonetheless receive a 

satisfactory performance review may be 

eligible to serve a second term of service 

in AmeriCorps. To make this clear, this 

rule makes three significant changes. 

First, it separates the end-of-term 

evaluation into two parts: (1) A 

determination of whether the 

participant is eligible to receive an 

education award; and (2) a participant 

performance and conduct review to 

determine whether the participant is 

eligible to serve a subsequent term. 

Second, it changes the regulatory 

language relating to the participant 

performance and conduct review to be 

inclusive of participants who are 

released from service early. Lastly, it 

makes clear that a release for cause is 

not a per se disqualification from 

serving a second term of service. 

Regarding the eligibility of a participant 

released for cause to serve a second 

term, it modifies the language relating to 

the participant performance and 

conduct review to ensure that programs 

are able to consider the participant’s 

conduct in assessing whether the 

service was satisfactory. 

The partition of the end-of-term 

evaluation will enable a program to 

consider a member’s eligibility to serve 

a second term separately from a 

member’s eligibility to receive an 

education award. An individual who 

serves satisfactorily may be eligible for 

a second term, regardless of whether the 

individual earned an education award. 

For example, an AmeriCorps member 

who decides to leave early to take 

advantage of a unique scholarship 

opportunity would not be eligible to 

receive an education award, but may be 

eligible to serve a second term of service 

if the member served satisfactorily prior 

to leaving early. Contrarily, an 

AmeriCorps member who did not serve 

satisfactorily and who exited early for 

the same reason would not earn an 

education award and would also be 

ineligible to serve a second term of 

service. 

It is not necessary to successfully 

complete a term of service for a 

member’s service to be considered 

satisfactory. However, a determination 

that a member is eligible to receive an 

education award based on successful 

completion of the agreed upon term of 

service necessarily encompasses a 

determination that the member served 

all the required hours, performed 

satisfactorily, and fulfilled all other 

requirements set by the program. The 

table below illustrates this rule in a 

simplified form: 

And... Eligible for an 

education award? 

Eligible for a second 

term? 

If a member performs satisfactorily .................. Completes service hours .................................. Yes ............................ Yes. 

Does not complete service hours .................... No .............................. Yes. 

If a member does not perform satisfactorily ..... Completes service hours .................................. No .............................. No. 

Does not complete service hours .................... No .............................. No. 

The final rule modifies the language 

of the participant performance and 

conduct review to ensure it incorporates 

those participants who are released 

early. In the proposed rule, we proposed 

a requirement for programs to assess 

whether a participant satisfactorily 

completed assignments, tasks, or 

projects, or, for those participants 

released from service early, whether the 

participant completed those 

assignments, tasks, or projects that the 

participant could reasonably have 

completed in the time the participant 

served. (72 FR 64970, November 19, 

2007). 

One commenter noted that the use of 

the word ‘‘completed’’ in the proposed 

rule may have unintended negative 

consequences as an individual who left 

early may not have been able to 

complete anything in the time served. 

The Corporation agrees that the phrase 

‘‘reasonably could have completed’’ is 

not consistent with our intent. Thus, in 

the final rule, the performance and 

conduct review will assess, in addition 

to any criteria developed by the 

program, whether the participant has 

satisfactorily completed assignments, 

tasks, or projects, or, for those 

participants released from service early, 

whether the participant ‘‘made a 

satisfactory effort to complete those 

assignments, tasks, or projects the 

participant could reasonably have 

addressed in the time the participant 

served.’’ 

The rule also changes the language so 

that the evaluation of the participant 

will henceforth occur ‘‘at the end’’ of 

the term of service, as opposed to ‘‘upon 

completion’’ of the term. By changing 

the language from ‘‘completion’’ to 

‘‘end,’’ the Corporation intends that 

programs should evaluate all members, 

even those who do not technically 

complete the originally agreed-upon 

number of service hours. 

During the public comment period, 

we received several comments on the 

eligibility of participants released for 

cause to serve second terms of service. 

One commenter expressed concern that 

the proposed rule would broaden the 

eligibility for a second term of service. 

In particular, the commenter noted that 

individuals who are released for 

misconduct, conviction of a felony, or 

for the sale or distribution of a 

controlled substance, may be eligible to 

serve a second term of service. The 

Corporation does not agree that the rule 

broadens eligibility for a second term. 

This rule codifies a practice supported 

by existing law; there is nothing in our 

current regulations or authorizing 

legislation to prohibit an individual 

who is released for cause but who serves 

satisfactorily in the first term of service 

from serving a subsequent term of 

service. 

However, the Corporation does agree 

that a member’s good conduct is a 

component of satisfactory service. As 

stated in Section 177(e) of the Act, 

AmeriCorps programs must ‘‘establish 

and stringently enforce standards of 

conduct at the program site to promote 

proper moral and disciplinary 

conditions.’’ Our proposed rule required 

programs to examine whether the 

participant ‘‘has met any other 

performance criteria’’ communicated by 

the program. To ensure that programs 

do not misinterpret this language to 

mean that the participant’s performance 

of duties is the only factor to consider 

in determining whether service was 

satisfactory, the Corporation has 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53755 

changed the rule from the proposed 

version by removing the word 

‘‘performance’’ to clarify our intent that 

programs assess whether the participant 

has met any criteria—including 

performance criteria and standards of 

conduct—established and 

communicated by the program. In 

addition, we have changed the name of 

the review to a participant performance 

and conduct review. 

For example, consider a program 

whose criteria include standards of 

conduct prohibiting members from 

engaging in any activity that may 

physically injure other members of the 

program and which require immediate 

release for cause for any member that 

violates this particular prohibition. 

Under the final rule, the program would 

give a member who violated this 

provision an unsatisfactory performance 

and conduct review upon release 

regardless of how impressive the 

member’s service was up to that point. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Corporation hold ineligible for 

subsequent service those members who 

were found to have engaged in 

misconduct, or who have had a 

detrimental effect on others, and to 

establish this standard through 

regulation. This commenter 

recommended that the Corporation 

develop a list such as that provided in 

the sample rules of conduct set out in 

the sample member contract distributed 

by the Corporation. 

As stated above, programs are 

required, by statute, to establish and 

enforce standards of conduct. Because 

member selection and release are the 

responsibilities of the grantee, and not 

the Corporation, we generally defer to 

the individual programs to establish 

these standards. The only offenses that 

the Corporation has mandated will 

render an individual ineligible to serve 

a term of service in AmeriCorps at this 

time are those that result in the 

individual being subject to a State sex 

offender registration requirement. As 

stated in the Corporation’s final rule on 

criminal background checks, the 

Corporation intends to consider, at a 

later date, adding other disqualifying 

factors, including specific offenses. (72 

FR 48574, August 24, 2007). 

Notably, individuals who were 

released for cause from the first term of 

service are required under our 

regulations to disclose this fact on any 

subsequent application for service with 

an AmeriCorps program. (45 CFR 

2522.230(b)(2)). Consequently, the 

Corporation anticipates that programs 

will consider the facts surrounding the 

prior release when determining whether 

to select the individual for service. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule should provide that a 

release for cause from a term of service 

counts as one of the two terms of service 

that may be subsidized with federal 

funds. We agree that our regulations 

need to clarify this point. Our 

regulations state that an AmeriCorps 

participant may only receive an 

education award, a living allowance, 

health care, and child care benefits 

supported with federal funds for the 

first two successfully-completed terms 

of service. (45 CFR 2522.220(b)). 

Clearly, a term in which a member exits 

for cause is not a successfully 

completed term. Section 140(h) of the 

Act limits the number of terms of 

service which can be supported with 

federal funds to two, but does not 

require that those terms be successfully 

completed. The final rule amends 

section 2522.220(b) by removing the 

words ‘‘successfully completed.’’ In 

addition, the final rule adds language to 

clarify that a release for cause counts as 

one of the two terms of service for 

which an individual may receive 

benefits supported with federal funds. 

In making this change, the final rule 

also adds language to clarify that if a 

participant is released for cause for 

reasons other than misconduct prior to 

completing fifteen percent of a term of 

service, the term will not be considered 

one of the two terms of service for 

which an individual may receive 

benefits supported with federal funds. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that our proposed section 

2522.230(b)(6), which states that a 

release for cause is not a per se 

disqualification from serving a second 

term of service, would allow an 

individual to serially start programs and 

leave for cause prior to completing 15% 

of the term of service. The rule that a 

release for misconduct prior to serving 

15% of a term counts as one of the two 

terms of service will prevent any person 

who is released for misconduct from 

serially starting and exiting programs. 

While there is no prohibition on an 

individual making repeated efforts to 

serve in AmeriCorps and leaving prior 

to serving 15% so long as the cause for 

exiting the program is not misconduct, 

the My AmeriCorps portal will enable 

programs to see each program with 

which an applicant has served, 

regardless of the length of the service. 

Thus, programs will be able to identify 

an individual who habitually enters and 

leaves AmeriCorps service prior to 

serving 15% of the term, and take that 

fact into account in making their 

selection decisions. 

One commenter recommended that 

the Corporation establish a third 

category for release in addition to 

releases for cause or for compelling 

personal circumstances because a 

release for cause seems to indicate a 

release for disciplinary reasons. The 

Corporation cannot create a third or 

additional category of release, as section 

139(c) of the Act identifies only two 

types of release: for cause and for 

compelling personal circumstances. 

However, as discussed above, 

participants who are released because 

they engaged in misconduct should be 

treated differently than participants who 

are released for a cause the program 

feels is reasonable (such as, for example, 

taking advantage of a limited time 

scholarship opportunity); as a release 

for cause covers both of these types of 

situations, the final rule requires 

programs to consider the circumstances 

surrounding an individual’s release in 

determining whether a participant 

served satisfactorily. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Corporation’s premise that the statute 

limits the ability of a participant to 

leave service either for cause or for 

compelling personal circumstances is 

erroneous because a participant may 

resign. The same commenter noted that 

a release ‘‘for cause’’ should be for 

reasons that are sufficient to warrant 

removal. While this interpretation of 

‘‘for cause’’ is accurate in other legal 

contexts, it is used in our authorizing 

statute as one of two possible 

characterizations of a release for 

determining whether a participant may 

receive an education award. While 

participants may resign from service, 

each resignation must be characterized 

as a release for cause or for compelling 

personal circumstances in order to 

determine whether the participant will 

receive a portion of the education 

award. As stated above, a release ‘‘for 

cause’’ covers all circumstances that do 

not meet the definition of ‘‘compelling 

personal circumstances,’’ including 

some circumstances that would not 

necessarily warrant removal in another 

legal context. 

D. Living Allowance Disbursement 

(§ 2522.245) 

The Corporation is in the process of 

revising the AmeriCorps grant 

provisions and moving requirements 

with program-wide applicability to 

regulation. This final rule codifies the 

requirements previously articulated in 

the sub-regulatory grant provisions on 

how living allowances are to be treated 

and disbursed. There is no new 

requirement for how the living 

allowances must be disbursed; only the 

location of the requirement has 

changed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53756 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The intent of this regulation is to 

ensure that the living allowance is 

distributed in a manner that fulfills its 

purpose. AmeriCorps participants are 

not employees of the programs with 

which they serve and the living 

allowance is not considered to be an 

hourly wage. Rather, the living 

allowance is intended to be a means to 

support participants’ basic costs of 

living to ensure that they are able to 

secure food, clothing, and shelter while 

performing national service. For this 

reason, it is important that programs not 

treat the living allowance as a wage, and 

not adjust the distribution of the living 

allowance based on the number of hours 

a participant serves during a given 

period of time. For example, a 

participant who serves for 50 hours one 

week and 25 the next should receive the 

same living allowances as if the 

participant had served 50 hours (or 25 

hours) in both weeks. Generally, the 

living allowance must not increase or 

decrease but should remain steady just 

as a participant’s living expenses are 

continuous. However, because the living 

allowance is intended to support a 

participant’s costs of living, if the cost 

of food, housing, transportation, or other 

necessities in a particular area increases, 

the program may adjust the living 

allowance accordingly within the 

overall approved grant amount. 

Just as the amount of the living 

allowance should not fluctuate, the 

frequency of distribution of the living 

allowance should be steady and reliable. 

Programs must provide living 

allowances at regular intervals, such as 

weekly or bi-weekly, so that a 

participant can have regular access to 

financial support. 

The final rule also codifies the 

existing policy prohibiting the payment 

of a ‘‘lump sums’’ to a participant who 

completes the term of service in a 

shorter period of time than originally 

anticipated. If a participant starts 

service later than other participants, the 

program may not pay the participant an 

additional sum to ‘‘make up’’ payments 

missed before the participant began. 

Likewise, if a participant completes the 

term of service ahead of schedule, the 

program may not pay the participant a 

lump sum equivalent to what the 

participant would have received. 

E. Waiver of Living Allowance by a 

Participant (§ 2522.240(b)(5)) 

The Corporation’s grant provisions 

have long provided that an AmeriCorps 

participant may waive all or part of the 

living allowance. The final rule adds 

this provision to regulation. A 

participant who waives the living 

allowance may revoke the waiver at any 

time and may begin receiving a living 

allowance again prospective from the 

date the waiver is revoked. The 

participant may not receive any part of 

the living allowance attributable to the 

time period during which the living 

allowance was waived. 

F. Applications for the Same Project 

(§ 2522.320) 

Section 130(g) of the Act states that 

‘‘the Corporation shall reject an 

application submitted under this section 

if a project proposed to be conducted 

using assistance requested by the 

applicant is already described in 

another application pending before the 

Corporation.’’ 

Under the proposed rule, an 

organization submitting more than one 

application for the same project must 

disclose that fact in each application. If 

the Corporation approves one 

application for a project, the 

organization will be deemed to have 

withdrawn any other application for the 

same project. In addition, the proposed 

rule included characteristics that the 

Corporation will assess in determining 

whether two projects are the same for 

purposes of section 130(g). 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed rule would result in 

further concentration of funding to 

programs operated by National Direct 

grantees in large cities, thereby 

disadvantaging single-state, small nonprofits, rural, and faith-based 

organizations. The Corporation does not 

agree that the rule will disadvantage 

single-state and local applicants. Such 

organizations are free to engage with 

State Commissions and National Direct 

grantees in developing programmatic 

collaborations. Moreover, States have 

the authority to choose not to put 

forward programs that could otherwise 

be funded through the National Direct 

competition, and the Corporation 

respects programmatic prerogatives of 

States. 

The same commenter asserted that the 

proposed rule contradicts Section 130(g) 

of the Act. In particular, the commenter 

suggested that there is a contradiction 

between the language of section 130(g) 

and the proposed language describing 

the multiple applications as ‘‘pending 

before the Corporation.’’ We construe 

‘‘pending’’ to mean the period of time 

between selection by the Corporation 

and execution of a grant award. To 

avoid confusion on this point, we have 

revised the language in the final rule to 

focus on the conditions placed on 

submission of an application. 

To clarify the definition of ‘‘same 

project,’’ the final rule lists the 

characteristics the Corporation 

considers in determining whether two 

projects are the same. The Corporation 

will consider two projects to be the 

same for the purposes of Corporation 

funding if the Corporation cannot find 

a meaningful difference between the 

two projects based on a comparison of 

identifying characteristics. The 

Corporation may determine that two or 

more projects are sufficiently different 

based upon clear distinctions in one or 

more of the criteria considered. Notably, 

the characteristics listed in regulation 

are not exhaustive, as the Corporation 

may consider additional factors in 

determining a project’s specific, 

identifiable activities. 

For the purpose of determining 

whether two applications describe the 

same project, geographic location will 

be identified as narrowly as possible in 

order to specify the population served. 

For example, the operation of a 

homeless shelter in Brooklyn might— 

depending on the proposed activities 

and identifying characteristics—be 

considered a different project than the 

operation of a homeless shelter in the 

Bronx. 

The proposed rule stated the 

Corporation would ‘‘consider, among 

other characteristics: (a) The objectives 

and priorities of the project; (b) the 

nature of the service provided; (c) the 

program staff, volunteers, and 

participants involved; (d) the geographic 

location in which the service is 

provided; (e) the population served; and 

(f) the proposed community 

partnerships.’’ 

One commenter noted that the 

language of the proposed rule was 

unclear, as it did not specify what the 

Corporation would do with the 

information considered. The 

Corporation agrees that the language 

was not specific, and has clarified the 

language in the final rule. The final rule 

reflects the Corporation’s intent to 

compare identifying characteristics of 

the two projects to determine whether 

they are the same for the purposes of 

Corporation funding. 

G. Performance Measures (§ 2522.620) 

CNCS will continue to require each 

grantee to submit measures of outputs, 

intermediate outcomes, and end 

outcomes, all of which capture the 

results of its program’s primary activity, 

in the application for funding. It will 

also continue to require grantees to 

report on outputs at the end of year one 

and outputs and intermediate outcomes 

at the end of years two and three. 

Previously, CNCS also required 

grantees to report on end outcomes at 

the end of year three. Because end 

outcomes do not always become evident 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53757 

until more than three years after the 

initial intervention, the final rule 

eliminates the requirement to report 

separately on end outcomes. The 

Corporation believes that there is 

significant value in having a grantee 

articulate an end outcome for at least 

one performance measure; end 

outcomes provide long-term context for 

the grantee’s work. Additionally, the 

inclusion of end outcomes results in 

recompleting applications informs the 

competitive grant process. 

H. Civil Rights (§§ 2540.210 and 

2540.215) 

The Corporation requires all 

recipients of Corporation grants to abide 

by applicable federal nondiscrimination laws, including relevant 

provisions of the national service 

legislation, implementing regulations, 

and Corporation-distributed policies. It 

is essential that all participants, staff, 

and beneficiaries of programs supported 

by Corporation grants are aware of their 

rights under these laws and of the 

availability of the Corporation’s 

impartial discrimination complaint 

process. 

Previously, the Corporation’s civil 

rights notification requirements were 

included in the annual grant provisions. 

The final rule has relocated these 

requirements to regulation. There is no 

change in the requirements, only in the 

location of the requirements. 

The final rule requires grantees to 

notify participants, staff, and 

beneficiaries of the civil rights 

requirements and available complaint 

procedures by including this 

information in materials commonly 

distributed to members and potential 

members, including recruitment 

materials, member contracts, 

handbooks, manuals, pamphlets, and 

also by posting it in conspicuous 

locations, as appropriate. Grantees 

should ensure that this information is 

accessible to those participants, staff, 

and beneficiaries who have limited 

English proficiency, or who are hearing 

or visually impaired, by providing it in 

alternative formats when necessary. 

Grantees may obtain sample 

notification language and other 

guidance on notification, the 

Corporation’s discrimination complaint 

procedure, and other general 

information on prohibited 

discrimination by contacting the 

Corporation’s Office of Civil Rights and 

Inclusiveness by mail at Office of Civil 

Rights and Inclusiveness, Corporation 

for National and Community Service, 

1201 New York Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20525, by e-mail at eo@cns.gov, or 

by calling (202) 606–7503 or (202) 606– 

3472 (TTY). 

I. Use of National Service Insignia 

(§§ 2540.500–560) 

Currently, grant recipients and other 

entities engaged in providing national 

and community services in cooperation 

with the Corporation are approved to 

use the national service insignia in 

accordance with the terms and 

conditions of their agreements with the 

Corporation. The Corporation 

anticipates continuing to administer 

approvals to use the national service 

insignia in this manner. 

From time to time, however, the 

Corporation’s insignia, including the 

AmeriCorps logo and other logos 

associated with the Corporation’s 

programs, have been used without 

authorization, including by individuals 

and entities having no relationship with 

the Corporation. In some cases, the 

unauthorized use was for commercial 

purposes that would not have been 

approved by the Corporation. To better 

protect the image and integrity of the 

Corporation’s programs, ensure 

compliance with government-wide rules 

against improper endorsement of nonFederal entities, and protect the public 

from possible deception, the final rule 

adds a new subpart E to part 2540 of 

Title 45 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. The rule provides notice 

regarding the restrictions on using the 

Corporation’s various insignia and the 

possible civil and criminal penalties 

that may incur for unauthorized use of 

the insignia. Depending upon the nature 

of the violation, under section 425 of the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 

and 18 U.S.C. 506, 701, and 1017, 

enforcement of the restriction could 

result in an injunction on the 

unauthorized use, a monetary fine, or 

imprisonment. 

J. Disqualification and Forfeiture Based 

on False or Misleading Statements 

(§§ 2540.600–670) 

The final rule adds a new subpart F 

to part 2540 to address individuals who 

are admitted to a program or who 

receive program benefits on the basis of 

false or misleading statements. 

Occasionally, a member or volunteer in 

a Corporation-funded program is 

discovered to have been admitted to the 

program or accorded a benefit from the 

program on the basis of false or 

misleading statements. The final rule 

provides a means for the Corporation to 

revoke the eligibility of a person for 

participation in or a benefit from a 

national service program if the person 

was admitted to a program or seeks a 

benefit from a program on the basis of 

a false or misleading statement. 

In most cases the criteria for 

qualification to participate in a program 

or eligibility for a program benefit are 

set out in the NCSA or the Domestic 

Volunteer Service Act of 1973, or 

related appropriations acts. If it is 

discovered that facts connected to 

qualification to participate or eligibility 

for a benefit were false or misleading, 

the Corporation has an obligation to 

revoke the person’s eligibility and 

refrain from providing a related benefit 

to that person. Additionally, the 

Corporation is legally obligated to 

recover funds from the person if funds 

were received on the basis of a false or 

misleading statement. 

The final rule gives individuals 

suspected of making false or misleading 

statements the opportunity to respond 

under a two-tier review process before 

their eligibility is revoked. Where there 

are genuine facts in dispute, a 

telephonic or face-to-face meeting may 

be included in the second level of 

review. 

The intent of the regulation is to 

provide a mechanism for revoking the 

eligibility of individuals who make a 

false or misleading statement in 

connection with their application to or 

enrollment in a national service 

program and for forfeiting eligibility for 

a related benefit. 

The action and procedures set out in 

the final rule are intended to 

supplement, not replace, remedies 

against offending parties that are 

available under other laws. Depending 

upon the nature and scope of a false or 

misleading statement, other legal action 

may be taken against the offending party 

under the False Claims Act, Program 

Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 

Suspension and Debarment regulations 

under 2 CFR parts 180 and 2200, and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

One commenter noted that the 

Corporation included language in the 

preamble to the proposed rule regarding 

the materiality of the false or misleading 

statement, while the rule itself did not 

address materiality. We have removed 

any language regarding materiality in 

the preamble to maintain consistency 

with our rule language. 

K. Inspector General Access to Grantee 

Records (§ 2541.420) 

Section 2541.420(e) is amended to 

specifically add the Inspector General 

among the authorities having access to 

pertinent grantee records. While it has 

always been understood that the Office 

of the Inspector General is a component 

of the awarding agency, the rule is being 

amended to match the access to records 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53758 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

language in § 2543.53, which 

specifically names the Inspector General 

among the authorities having access to 

grantee records. 

L. State Commission Composition 

Requirements (§ 2550.50) 

Section 178(d)(1) of the Act states that 

‘‘the Chief Executive Officer of a State 

shall ensure, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that the membership for the 

State Commission for the State is 

diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, 

age, gender, and disability 

characteristics. Not more than 50 

percent of the voting members, plus one 

additional member, may be from the 

same political party.’’ Section 178(c)(5) 

of the Act states that ‘‘[t]he number of 

voting members of a State Commission 

* * * who are officers or employees of 

the State may not exceed 25 percent 

* * * of the total membership of the 

State Commission.’’ 

The final rule conforms 45 CFR 

2550.50 to the specific language in the 

statute, including a clarification that the 

political affiliation provision applies 

only to voting members of the State 

Commission. 

M. State Plans (§§ 2550.80–85) 

Section 178(e) of the Act requires a 

State Commission to prepare and 

annually update a national service plan 

covering a three-year period. This Plan, 

previously referred to as a ‘‘Unified 

State Plan,’’ a ‘‘State Service Plan,’’ and, 

presently, a ‘‘State Plan,’’ is a document 

that sets forth the State’s goals, 

priorities, and strategies for promoting 

national and community service. The 

Act specifies several components that 

must be present in the Plan, including 

the State’s efforts to convene, 

collaborate, or otherwise coordinate 

with diverse national and community 

service groups and agencies to 

accomplish the State’s national and 

community service goals. 

The Act gives latitude to the 

Corporation to establish additional 

requirements for the contents of the 

State Plan. Over time, we have found 

that the State’s submission of certain 

information is mutually beneficial. For 

example, to enhance communication 

and coordination between the 

Corporation and the State, it is useful 

for us to know how the State is utilizing 

statewide networks of national and 

community service groups to achieve its 

goals and priorities. In addition, the 

availability of such information serves 

as a resource for identifying best 

practices to be shared with other States. 

By including these elements with the 

description of a State Commission’s 

duties we eliminated the need to 

publish State Plan requirements as a 

separate part; therefore, the final rule 

strikes part 2513 of Title 45. 

Section 2550.80 lists the duties of 

State entities. The final rule conforms 

paragraph (a) of this section to the 

statutory list of responsibilities of State 

entities with regard to preparation of a 

State Plan. In addition, the final rule 

amends this section to include the 

requirement, previously located in part 

2513, that the State Plan incorporate the 

State’s ‘‘goals, priorities, and strategies 

for promoting national and community 

service and strengthening its service 

infrastructure, including how 

Corporation-funded programs fit into 

the plan.’’ This groups together relevant 

information and consolidates the 

regulatory required components of the 

State Plan. The final rule imposes no 

new requirements for the contents of the 

State Plan, while reserving the 

Corporation’s right to request 

submission of the State Plan in its 

entirety, in sum, or in part. 

The Corporation uses State Plans 

principally in understanding the State’s 

national and community service goals, 

priorities, and strategies, not in making 

future funding decisions or monitoring 

determinations, risk-based assessments, 

or State Standards process evaluations. 

IV. Summary of Redesignations 

The proposed rule will change the 

location of a number of regulations. The 

following table is a guide to the current 

location of a provision and its new 

location under the proposed rule. 

Current location Proposed location 

2520.65(a)(9) .................. 2520.65(a)(10) 

2522.240(b)(5) ................ 2522.240(b)(6) 

2550.80(a)(3) .................. 2550.80(a)(4) 

V. Effective Dates 

This final rule will take effect 

November 17, 2008. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Corporation has determined that 

the regulatory action will not result in 

(1) an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more; (2) a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. Therefore, the 

Corporation has not performed the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis that 

is required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for 

major rules that are expected to have 

such results. 

Other Impact Analyses 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

information collection requirements 

which must be imposed as a result of 

this regulation have been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under OMB nos. 3045–0047, 3045–0117, 

and 3045–0099. 

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 either Federal, State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or impose an annual burden 

exceeding $100 million on the private 

sector. 

List of Subjects 

45 CFR Part 2510 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Volunteers. 

45 CFR Part 2513 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volunteers. 

45 CFR Part 2516 

Grants administration, Grant 

programs—social programs. 

45 CFR Part 2517 

Grants administration, Grant 

programs—social programs. 

45 CFR Part 2520 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Volunteers. 

45 CFR Part 2521 

Grants administration, Grant 

programs—social programs. 

45 CFR Part 2522 

Grants administration, Grant 

programs—social programs, Volunteers. 

45 CFR Part 2523 

Grant programs—social programs. 

45 CFR Part 2540 

Civil rights, Fraud, Grants 

administration, Grant programs—social 

programs, Trademarks—signs and 

symbols, Trust, Volunteers. 

45 CFR Part 2541 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Investigations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53759 

45 CFR Part 2550 

Grants administration, Grant 

programs—social programs. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

under the authority 42 U.S.C. 12651d, 

the Corporation for National and 

Community Service amends chapter 

XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 2510—OVERALL PURPOSES 

AND DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2510 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 2510.20 by adding a new 

paragraph (3) to the definition of 

‘‘participant’’ to read as follows: 

§ 2510.20 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Participant. 

* * * * * 

(3) A participant may also be referred 

to by the term member. 

* * * * * 

PART 2513—[REMOVED] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve part 2513. 

PART 2516—SCHOOL-BASED 

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 2516 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12521–12551. 

§ 2516.400 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 2516.400 introductory text 

by removing ‘‘part 2513’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2550.80(a) of this chapter’’ in its 

place. 

§ 2516.410 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 2516.410(a)(1) by 

removing ‘‘part 2513’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2550.80(a)’’ in its place. 

§ 2516.500 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 2516.500(a)(3)(i) by 

removing ‘‘part 2513’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2550.80(a)’’ in its place. 

PART 2517—COMMUNITY-BASED 

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 2517 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12541–12547. 

§ 2517.400 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 2517.400(a)(3) by 

removing ‘‘part 2513’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2550.80(a)’’ in its place. 

§ 2517.500 [Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 2517.500(c)(3) by 

removing ‘‘part 2513’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2550.80(a)’’ in its place. 

PART 2520—GENERAL PROVISIONS: 

AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C 

PROGRAMS 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 

2520 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595. 

■ 12. Amend § 2520.65 by redesignating 

paragraph (a)(9) as (a)(10) and adding a 

new paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 2520.65 What activities are prohibited in 

AmeriCorps subtitle C programs? 

(a) * * * 

(9) Conducting a voter registration 

drive or using Corporation funds to 

conduct a voter registration drive; 

* * * * * 

PART 2521—ELIGIBLE AMERICORPS 

SUBTITLE C PROGRAM APPLICANTS 

AND TYPES OF GRANTS AVAILABLE 

FOR AWARD 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 

2521 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595. 

■ 14. In § 2521.30, revise paragraph 

(a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 2521.30 How will AmeriCorps subtitle C 

program grants be awarded? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) In making subgrants with funds 

awarded by formula or competition 

under paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of this 

section, a State must ensure that a 

minimum of 50 percent of funds going 

to States will be used for programs that 

operate in the areas of need or on 

Federal or other public lands, and that 

place a priority on recruiting 

participants who are residents in high 

need areas, or on Federal or other public 

lands. The Corporation may waive this 

requirement for an individual State if at 

least 50 percent of the total amount of 

assistance to all States will be used for 

such programs. 

* * * * * 

PART 2522—AMERICORPS 

PARTICIPANTS, PROGRAMS, AND 

APPLICANTS 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 

2522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595; 

12651b–12651d; E.O. 13331, 69 FR 9911. 

■ 16. Amend § 2522.220 by 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text and paragraph (d); and 

■ b. Removing the phrase ‘‘successfullycompleted’’ from paragraph (b). 

The revisions will read as follows: 

§ 2522.220 What are the required terms of 

service for AmeriCorps participants, and 

may they serve more than one term? 

(a) Term of Service. A term of service 

may be defined as: 

* * * * * 

(d) Participant evaluation. For the 

purposes of determining a participant’s 

eligibility for an educational award as 

described in § 2522.240(a) and 

eligibility to serve a second or 

additional term of service as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section, each 

AmeriCorps grantee is responsible for 

conducting a mid-term and end-of-term 

evaluation. A mid-term evaluation is not 

required for a participant who is 

released early from a term of service or 

in other circumstances as approved by 

the Corporation. The end-of-term 

evaluation should consist of: 

(1) A determination of whether the 

participant: 

(i) Successfully completed the 

required term of service described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, making the 

participant eligible for an educational 

award as described in § 2522.240(a); 

(ii) Was released from service for 

compelling personal circumstances, 

making the participant eligible for a prorated educational award as described in 

§ 2522.230(a)(2); or 

(iii) Was released from service for 

cause, making the participant ineligible 

to receive an educational award for that 

term of service as described in 

§ 2522.230(b)(3); and 

(2) A participant performance and 

conduct review to determine whether 

the participant’s service was 

satisfactory, which will assess whether 

the participant: 

(i) Has satisfactorily completed 

assignments, tasks, or projects, or, for 

those participants released from service 

early, whether the participant made a 

satisfactory effort to complete those 

assignments, tasks, or projects that the 

participant could reasonably have 

addressed in the time the participant 

served; and 

(ii) Has met any other criteria which 

had been clearly communicated both 

orally and in writing at the beginning of 

the term of service. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 2522.230 by adding new 

paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), and (e) to read 

as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53760 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 2522.230 Under what circumstances may 

AmeriCorps participants be released from 

completing a term of service, and what are 

the consequences? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) An individual’s eligibility for a 

second term of service in AmeriCorps 

will not be affected by release for cause 

from a prior term of service so long as 

the individual received a satisfactory 

end-of-term performance review as 

described in § 2522.240(d)(2) for the 

period served in the first term. 

(7) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, a term of service from 

which an individual is released for 

cause counts as one of the two terms of 

service described in § 2522.220(b) for 

which an individual may receive the 

benefits described in §§ 2522.240 

through 2522.250. 

* * * * * 

(e) Release prior to serving 15 percent 

of a term of service. If a participant is 

released for reasons other than 

misconduct prior to completing 15 

percent of a term of service, the term 

will not be considered one of the two 

terms of service described in 

§ 2522.220(b) for which an individual 

may receive the benefits described in 

§§ 2522.240 through 2522.250. 

■ 18. Amend § 2522.240 by: 

■ a. Revising the heading of paragraph 

(b)(4); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(6); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5). 

The revisions and additions will read 

as follows: 

§ 2522.240 What financial benefits do 

AmeriCorps participants serving in 

approved AmeriCorps positions receive? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Waiver or reduction of living 

allowance for programs. * * * 

(5) Waiver or reduction of living 

allowance by participants. A participant 

may waive all or part of the receipt of 

a living allowance. The participant may 

revoke this waiver at any time during 

the participant’s term of service. If the 

participant revokes the living allowance 

waiver, the participant may begin 

receiving his or her living allowance 

prospective from the date of the 

revocation; a participant may not 

receive any portion of the living 

allowance that may have accrued during 

the waiver period. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Add a new § 2522.245 to read as 

follows: 

§ 2522.245 How are living allowances 

disbursed? 

A living allowance is not a wage and 

programs may not pay living allowances 

on an hourly basis. Programs must 

distribute the living allowance at regular 

intervals and in regular increments, and 

may increase living allowance payments 

only on the basis of increased living 

expenses such as food, housing, or 

transportation. Living allowance 

payments may only be made to a 

participant during the participant’s term 

of service and must cease when the 

participant concludes the term of 

service. Programs may not provide a 

lump sum payment to a participant who 

completes the originally agreed-upon 

term of service in a shorter period of 

time. 

■ 20. Revise § 2522.320 to read as 

follows: 

§ 2522.320 Under what conditions may I 

submit more than one application for the 

same project? 

You may submit more than one 

application for the same project only if: 

(a) You submit the applications in 

separate competitions (i.e., National 

Direct, State, Education Award 

Program); and 

(b) You disclose in each application 

that you have submitted another 

application for the same project to the 

Corporation. 

■ 21. Add new §§ 2522.330 and 

2522.340 to subpart C to read as follows: 

§ 2522.330 What happens to additional 

applications for the same project if the 

Corporation approves one application? 

If the Corporation approves one 

application for a project, you will be 

deemed to have withdrawn any other 

application (or part thereof) for the same 

project. 

§ 2522.340 How will I know if two projects 

are the same? 

The Corporation will consider two 

projects to be the same if the 

Corporation cannot identify a 

meaningful difference between the two 

projects based on a comparison of the 

following characteristics, among others: 

(a) The objectives and priorities of the 

projects; 

(b) The nature of the services 

provided; 

(c) The program staff, participants, 

and volunteers involved; 

(d) The geographic locations in which 

the services are provided; 

(e) The populations served; and 

(f) The proposed community 

partnerships. 

■ 22. Amend § 2522.620 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 2522.620 How do I report my 

performance measures to the Corporation? 

* * * * * 

(c) At a minimum you are required to 

report on outputs at the end of year one 

and outputs and intermediate outcomes 

at the end of years two and three. We 

encourage you to exceed these 

minimum requirements. 

PART 2523—AGREEMENTS WITH 

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR THE 

PROVISION OF AMERICORPS 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE 

■ 23. The authority citation for part 

2523 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595. 

§ 2523.90 [Amended] 

■ 24. Amend § 2523.90 by removing 

‘‘§ 2522.240(b)(5)’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 2522.240(b)(6)’’ in its place. 

PART 2524—AMERICORPS 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND 

OTHER SPECIAL GRANTS 

■ 25. The authority citation for part 

2524 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571–12595. 

§ 2524.30 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 2524.30(b)(4) by 

removing ‘‘2522.240(b)(5)’’ and adding 

‘‘2522.240(b)(6)’’ in its place. 

PART 2540—GENERAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 

■ 27. The authority citation for part 

2540 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: E.O. 13331, 69 FR 9911; 18 

U.S.C. 506, 701, 1017; 42 U.S.C. 12653; 42 

U.S.C. 5065. 

■ 28. Amend § 2540.210 by adding a 

new paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 2540.210 What provisions exist to ensure 

that Corporation-supported programs do 

not discriminate in the selection of 

participants and staff? 

* * * * * 

(d) Grantees must notify all program 

participants, staff, applicants, and 

beneficiaries of: 

(1) Their rights under applicable 

federal nondiscrimination laws, 

including relevant provisions of the 

national service legislation and 

implementing regulations; and 

(2) The procedure for filing a 

discrimination complaint with the 

Corporation’s Office of Civil Rights and 

Inclusiveness. 

■ 29. Add a new § 2540.215 to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 53761 

§ 2540.215 What should a program 

participant, staff members, or beneficiary 

do if the individual believes he or she has 

been subject to illegal discrimination? 

A program participant, staff member, 

or beneficiary who believes that he or 

she has been subject to illegal 

discrimination should contact the 

Corporation’s Office of Civil Rights and 

Inclusiveness, which offers an impartial 

discrimination complaint resolution 

process. Participation in a 

discrimination complaint resolution 

process is protected activity; a grantee is 

prohibited from retaliating against an 

individual for making a complaint or 

participating in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing. 

■ 30. Add a new Subpart E (consisting 

of §§ 2540.500 through 2540.560) to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—Restrictions on Use of National 

Service Insignia 

Sec. 

2540.500 What definition applies to this 

subpart? 

2540.510 What are the restrictions on using 

national service insignia? 

2540.520 What are the consequences for 

unauthorized use of the Corporation’s 

national service insignia? 

2540.530 Are there instances where an 

insignia may be used without getting the 

approval of the Corporation? 

2540.540 Who has authority to approve use 

of national service insignia? 

2540.550 Is there an expiration date on 

approvals for use of national service 

insignia? 

2540.560 How do I renew authority to use 

a national service insignia? 

Subpart E—Restrictions on Use of 

National Service Insignia 

§ 2540.500 What definition applies to this 

subpart? 

National Service Insignia. For this 

subpart, national service insignia means 

the former and current seal, logos, 

names, or symbols of the Corporation’s 

programs, products, or services, 

including those for AmeriCorps, VISTA, 

Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, 

Foster Grandparents, the Senior 

Companion Program, the Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program, the National 

Civilian Community Corps, and any 

other program or project that the 

Corporation administers. 

§ 2540.510 What are the restrictions on 

using national service insignia? 

The national service insignia are 

owned by the Corporation and only may 

be used as authorized. The national 

service insignia may not be used by 

non-federal entities for fundraising 

purposes or in a manner that suggests 

Corporation endorsement. 

§ 2540.520 What are the consequences for 

unauthorized use of the Corporation’s 

national service insignia? 

Any person who uses the national 

service insignia without authorization 

may be subject to legal action for 

trademark infringement, enjoined from 

continued use, and, for certain types of 

unauthorized uses, other civil or 

criminal penalties may apply. 

§ 2540.530 Are there instances where an 

insignia may be used without getting the 

approval of the Corporation? 

All uses of the national service 

insignia require the written approval of 

the Corporation. 

§ 2540.540 Who has authority to approve 

use of national service insignia? 

Approval for limited uses may be 

provided through the terms of a written 

grant or other agreement. All other uses 

must be approved in writing by the 

director of the Corporation’s Office of 

Public Affairs, or his or her designee. 

§ 2540.550 Is there an expiration date on 

approvals for use of national service 

insignia? 

The approval to use a national service 

insignia will expire as determined in 

writing by the director of the Office of 

Public Affairs, or his or her designee. 

However, the authority to use an 

insignia may be revoked at any time if 

the Corporation determines that the use 

involved is injurious to the image of the 

Corporation or if there is a failure to 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of the authorization. 

§ 2540.560 How do I renew authority to use 

a national service insignia? 

Requests for renewed authority to use 

an insignia must follow the procedures 

for initial approval as set out in 

§ 2540.540. 

■ 31. Add a new Subpart F (consisting 

of §§ 2540.600 through 2540.670) to 

read as follows: 

Subpart F—False or Misleading Statements 

Sec. 

2540.600 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

2540.610 What are the consequences of 

making a false or misleading statement? 

2540.620 What are my rights if the 

Corporation determines that I have made 

a false or misleading statement? 

2540.630 What information must I provide 

to contest a proposed action? 

2540.640 When will the reviewing official 

make a decision on the proposed action? 

2540.650 How may I contest a reviewing 

official’s decision to uphold the 

proposed action? 

2540.660 If the final decision determines 

that I received a financial benefit 

improperly, will I be required to repay 

that benefit? 

2540.670 Will my qualification to 

participate or eligibility for benefits be 

suspended during the review process? 

Subpart F—False or Misleading 

Statements 

§ 2540.600 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

You. For this subpart, you refers to a 

participant in a national service 

program. 

§ 2540.610 What are the consequences of 

making a false or misleading statement? 

If it is determined that you made a 

false or misleading statement in 

connection with your eligibility for a 

benefit from, or qualification to 

participate in, a Corporation-funded 

program, it may result in the revocation 

of the qualification or forfeiture of the 

benefit. Revocation and forfeiture under 

this part are in addition to any other 

remedy available to the Federal 

Government under the law against 

persons who make false or misleading 

statements in connection with a 

Federally-funded program. 

§ 2540.620 What are my rights if the 

Corporation determines that I have made a 

false or misleading statement? 

If the Corporation determines that you 

have made a false or misleading 

statement in connection with your 

eligibility for a benefit from, or 

qualification to participate in, a 

Corporation-funded program, you will 

be hand delivered a written notice, or 

sent a written notice to your last known 

street address or e-mail address or that 

of your identified counsel at least 15 

days before any proposed action is 

taken. The notice will include the facts 

surrounding the determination and the 

action the Corporation proposes to take. 

The notice will also identify the 

reviewing official in your case and 

provide other pertinent information. 

You will be allowed to show good cause 

as to why forfeiture, revocation, the 

denial of a benefit, or other action 

should not be implemented. You will be 

given 10 calendar days to submit 

written materials in opposition to the 

proposed action. 

§ 2540.630 What information must I 

provide to contest a proposed action? 

Your written response must include 

specific facts that contradict the 

statements made in the notice of 

proposed action. A general statement of 

denial is insufficient to raise a dispute 

over the facts material to the proposed 

action. Your response should also 

include copies of any documents that 

support your argument. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

53762 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 2540.640 When will the reviewing official 

make a decision on the proposed action? 

The reviewing official will issue a 

decision within 45 days of receipt of 

your response. 

§ 2540.650 How may I contest a reviewing 

official’s decision to uphold the proposed 

action? 

If the Corporation’s reviewing official 

concludes that the proposed action, in 

full or in part, should still be 

implemented, you will have an 

opportunity to request an additional 

proceeding. A Corporation program 

director or designee will conduct a 

review of the complete record, 

including such additional relevant 

documents you submit. If deemed 

appropriate, such as where there are 

material facts in genuine dispute, the 

program director or designee may 

conduct a telephonic or in person 

meeting. If a meeting is conducted, it 

will be recorded and you will be 

provided a copy of the recording. The 

program director or designee will issue 

a decision within 30 days of the 

conclusion of the review of the record 

or meeting. The decision of the program 

director or designee is final and cannot 

be appealed further within the agency. 

§ 2540.660 If the final decision determines 

that I received a financial benefit 

improperly, will I be required to repay that 

benefit? 

If it is determined that you received 

a financial benefit improperly, you may 

be required to reimburse the program for 

that benefit. 

§ 2540.670 Will my qualification to 

participate or eligibility for benefits be 

suspended during the review process? 

If the reviewing official determines 

that, based on the information available, 

there is a reasonable likelihood that you 

will be determined disqualified or 

ineligible, your qualification or 

eligibility may be suspended, pending 

issuance of a final decision, to protect 

the public interest. 

PART 2541—UNIFORM 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE 

AGREEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENTS 

■ 32. The authority citation for part 

2541 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq. and 

12501 et seq. 

■ 33. Amend § 2541.420 by revising 

paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 2541.420 Retention and access 

requirements for records. 

* * * * * 

(e) Access to records.—(1) Records of 

grantees and subgrantees. The awarding 

agency, the Inspector General, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States, or any of their authorized 

representatives, shall have the right of 

access to any pertinent books, 

documents, papers, or other records of 

grantees and subgrantees which are 

pertinent to the grant, in order to make 

audits, examinations, excerpts, and 

transcripts. 

* * * * * 

PART 2550—REQUIREMENTS AND 

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STATE 

COMMISSIONS AND ALTERNATIVE 

ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITIES 

■ 34. The authority citation for part 

2550 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12638. 

■ 35. Amend § 2550.50 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 2550.50 What are the composition 

requirements and other requirements, 

restrictions or guidelines for State 

Commissions? 

* * * * * 

(e) Other composition requirements. 

To the extent practicable, the chief 

executive officer of a State shall ensure 

that the membership for the State 

commission is diverse with respect to 

race, ethnicity, age, gender, and 

disability characteristics. Not more than 

50 percent plus one of the voting 

members of a State commission may be 

from the same political party. In 

addition, the number of voting members 

of a State commission who are officers 

or employees of the State may not 

exceed 25% of the total membership of 

that State commission. 

* * * * * 

■ 36. Amend § 2550.80 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 2550.80 What are the duties of the State 

entities? 

* * * * * 

(a) Development of a three-year, 

comprehensive national and community 

service plan and establishment of State 

priorities. The State entity must develop 

and annually update a Statewide plan 

for national service covering a threeyear period that is consistent with the 

Corporation’s broad goals of meeting 

human, educational, environmental, 

and public safety needs and meets the 

following minimum requirements: 

(1) The plan must be developed 

through an open and public process 

(such as through regional forums or 

hearings) that provides for the 

maximum participation and input from 

a broad cross-section of individuals and 

organizations, including national 

service programs within the State, 

community-based agencies, 

organizations with a demonstrated 

record of providing educational, public 

safety, human, or environmental 

services, residents of the State, 

including youth and other prospective 

participants, State Educational 

Agencies, traditional service 

organizations, labor unions, and other 

interested members of the public. 

(2) The plan must ensure outreach to 

diverse, broad-based community 

organizations that serve 

underrepresented populations by 

creating State networks and registries or 

by utilizing existing ones. 

(3) The plan must set forth the State’s 

goals, priorities, and strategies for 

promoting national and community 

service and strengthening its service 

infrastructure, including how 

Corporation-funded programs fit into 

the plan. 

(4) The plan may contain such other 

information as the State commission 

considers appropriate and must contain 

such other information as the 

Corporation may require. 

(5) The plan must be submitted, in its 

entirety, in summary, or in part, to the 

Corporation upon request. 

* * * * * 

■ 37. Add a new § 2550.85 to read as 

follows: 

§ 2550.85 How will the State Plan be 

assessed? 

The Corporation will assess the 

quality of your State Plan as evidenced 

by: 

(a) The development and quality of 

realistic goals and objectives for moving 

service ahead in the State; 

(b) The extent to which proposed 

strategies can reasonably be expected to 

accomplish stated goals; and 

(c) The extent of input in the 

development of the State plan from a 

broad cross-section of individuals and 

organizations as required by 

§ 2550.80(a)(1). 

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Frank R. Trinity, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E8–21634 Filed 9–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES