65778 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1On July 29, 2016, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) published the final rule, 

National School Lunch Program and School 

Breakfast Program: Eliminating Applications 

through Community Eligibility as Required by the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 [81 FR 

50194, July 29, 2016], which codified CEP 

requirements that were implemented through 

statute and policy guidance, at § 245.9(f). 

2 Identified students include students living in 

households participating in SNAP, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, and FDPIR. 

Identified students also include those who are 

homeless, migrant, runaway, in foster care, or 

enrolled in Head Start. In some States, students are 

directly certified through Medicaid direct 

certification demonstration projects. Students in 

States participating in the Medicaid direct 

certification demonstration projects are only 

included in the ISP if they are certified for free 

meals (not reduced price meals). 

3CEP schools only claim meals at the free and 

paid reimbursement rates. CEP schools do not claim 

reduced price meals. 

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 10, 2023, at 88 FR 43425—and 

corrected on July 12, 2023, at 88 FR 

44191—is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

Approved: September 21, 2023. 

Rebecca J. Osborne, 

Federal Register Liaison, Federal Labor 

Relations Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20892 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7627–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Part 245 

[FNS–2022–0044] 

RIN 0584–AE93 

Child Nutrition Programs: Community 

Eligibility Provision—Increasing 

Options for Schools 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) 

regulations by lowering the minimum 

identified student percentage (ISP) from 

40 percent to 25 percent. Lowering the 

minimum ISP will give States and 

schools greater flexibility to offer meals 

to all enrolled students at no cost when 

financially viable. As a result of this 

rule, more schools are eligible to 

participate in CEP and experience the 

associated benefits, such as increasing 

students’ access to healthy, no-cost 

school meals; eliminating unpaid meal 

charges; reducing stigma; and 

streamlining Program administration 

and meal service operations. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 26, 

2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Frey, Branch Chief, Policy 

Design Branch, School Meals Policy 

Division—4th Floor, Food and Nutrition 

Service, 1320 Braddock Place, 

Alexandria, VA 22314, telephone: 703– 

305–2590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Community Eligibility Provision 

(CEP) is an option for eligible schools to 

offer meals at no cost to all enrolled 

students without collecting household 

applications. Authorized by the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

(HHFKA) and codified in regulations at 

7 CFR 245.9(f), CEP is a reimbursement 

alternative for eligible local educational 

agencies (LEAs) and schools 

participating in both the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) and 

School Breakfast Program (SBP).1 CEP 

eliminates the need for schools to 

collect household income applications 

by sharing eligibility data between 

specific Federal assistance programs, 

which can reduce administrative burden 

for both schools and families. 

To be eligible for CEP, an individual 

school, group of schools, or LEA must 

meet or exceed the established, 

minimum identified student percentage 

(ISP) in the school year prior to 

implementing CEP. The ISP is the 

percentage of enrolled students who are 

certified for free school meals without 

submitting a household application, 

such as those directly certified through 

specific Federal benefits programs (e.g., 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) and the Food 

Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations (FDPIR)). For CEP, 

students who are certified for free meals 

without a household application are 

‘‘identified students’’ (42 U.S.C. 

1759a(a)(1)(F)(i); 7 CFR 245.9(f)(1)(ii)) 2

The ISP is calculated by dividing the 

total number of identified students by 

the total number of enrolled students: 

Under current regulations, the 

minimum ISP is 40 percent; therefore, to 

be eligible for CEP, an individual 

school, group of schools, or LEA must 

have an ISP greater than, or equal to, 40 

percent (ISP ≥40 percent) as of April 1 

of the school year prior to implementing 

CEP (7 CFR 245.9(f)(3)(i)). 

The ISP determines eligibility to 

participate in CEP and is also the basis 

of Federal reimbursements for meals 

served to students in CEP schools. The 

National School Lunch Act (NSLA) 

gives the Secretary discretion to 

establish a CEP ‘‘multiplier’’ between 

1.3 and 1.6 that is used to determine the 

percentage of meals that CEP schools 

claim at the free and paid 

reimbursement rate levels (42 U.S.C. 

1759a(a)(1)(F)(vii)(II)(aa)). To promote 

CEP financial viability, USDA codified 

a multiplier of 1.6 (7 CFR 

245.9(f)(4)(vi)). The ISP is multiplied by 

1.6 to calculate the percentage of meals 

reimbursed at the Federal free rate. Any 

remaining meals, up to 100 percent, are 

reimbursed at the Federal paid rate.3

% Meals reimbursed at Federal free rate 

= ISP × 1.6 

% Meals reimbursed at Federal paid rate 

= 100¥% meals reimbursed at 

Federal free rate 

CEP requires that LEAs must pay, 

with non-Federal funds, any costs of 

offering free meals to all students that 

exceed the Federal assistance provided. 

If all operating costs are covered by the 

Federal assistance provided, then LEAs 

are not required to contribute nonFederal funds (7 CFR 245.9(f)(4)(vii)). 

On March 23, 2023, USDA published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(88 FR 17406), seeking to lower the 

minimum ISP to 25 percent, and make 

related, conforming changes to CEP 

regulatory text at 7 CFR 245.9(f). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER26SE23.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65779 

4USDA’s first comprehensive study since CEP 

became available nationwide compared the impact 

of CEP participation in school districts that elected 

CEP to similar non-participating school districts. 

The study showed about 7% and 12% higher 

student participation in NSLP and SBP, 

respectively, in schools under CEP compared to 

eligible but non-participating schools. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. (2022). USDA 

Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics 

Study, School Year 2016–2017. OMB #0584–0612, 

expiration 9/30/2019. Available at: https://

www.fns.usda.gov/cn/usda-cep-characteristicsstudy-sy-2016-17. 

5Cohen JFW, Hecht AA, McLoughlin GM, Turner 

L, Schwartz MB. Universal School Meals and 

Associations with Student Participation, 

Attendance, Academic Performance, Diet Quality, 

Food Security, and Body Mass Index: A Systematic 

Review. Nutrients. 2021 Mar 11;13(3):911. Diet 

quality and food security (pp. 6–9); Academic 

performance (p. 10). Available at: https://

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33799780/. 

6National Bureau of Economics. (2022). The 

Effect of Free School Meals on Household Food 

Purchases: Evidence from the Community 

Eligibility Provision. Available at: https:// 

www.nber.org/papers/w29395. ‘‘CEP exposure’’ is 

the probability that a household has a child 

enrolled at a CEP school, based on schools’ CEP 

participation, household zip codes, and school 

attendance areas. 

7U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2022). USDA 

Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics 

Study, School Year 2016–2017. OMB #0584–0612, 

expiration 9/30/2019. Available at https:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/cn/usda-cep-characteristicsstudy-sy-2016-17 (p. 43). 

8U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). 

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation Final 

Report. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/ 

default/files/CEPEvaluation.pdf (p. 127–135). 

9Milfort et al. (2021). Third Access, Participation, 

Eligibility, and Certification Study. Prepared by 

Westat, Inc., Contract No. AG–3198–K–15–0054. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy 

Support, Project Officer: Conor McGovern. 

Available online at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/ 

sites/default/files/resource-files/APECIII-Vol1.pdf 

(p. 8–14 through 9–3). 

As described in detail in the proposed 

rule, CEP benefits children, families, 

schools, and communities. Schools 

participating in CEP often experience an 

increase in the number of students 

accessing the SBP and NSLP, resulting 

in more children benefiting from the 

advantages these Programs offer.4

Research demonstrates that access to 

school meals at no cost improves 

students’ diet quality and academic 

performance and can reduce social 

stigma and food insecurity.5 Researchers 

have observed that ‘‘CEP exposure is 

associated with an almost five percent 

decline in households classified as food 

insecure.’’ 6 LEAs have also reported 

that CEP reduces administrative burden 

and eliminates unpaid meal debt in 

schools.7 Lastly, CEP improves Program 

integrity by simplifying administration 

and lowering error rates in certifying 

students.8 9

This final rule lowers the minimum 

ISP from 40 percent to 25 percent and 

makes conforming changes to ISPrelated requirements (i.e., grace year 

eligibility and identification/ 

notification/publication requirements). 

Electing CEP is a voluntary decision 

made by LEAs based on their unique 

student populations. Prior to 

participating in CEP, LEA 

decisionmakers should consider student 

nutrition, educational, administrative, 

and financial factors. This rule does not 

impose any new requirements on LEAs 

or schools. Through this final rule an 

increased number of LEAs, schools, and 

groups of schools will be eligible to offer 

all students lunches and breakfasts at 

no-cost when it is financially viable. 

This final rule supports State and local 

choices to expand the availability of nocost school meals for all students 

through programs supported by State or 

local funding. 

USDA solicited public comments on 

the proposed change to lower the 

minimum ISP to 25 percent. In addition, 

USDA requested public comments on 

the following questions: 

(1) To what extent are LEAs that 

would be newly eligible under this 

proposed rule expected to elect CEP? 

(2) What sources of non-Federal funds 

are available to support LEAs electing 

CEP at lower ISPs? 

(3) In a typical year, how much time 

do LEAs spend on administrative duties 

that may be eliminated by electing CEP 

(e.g., processing applications, managing 

unpaid meal charges, conducting 

verification)? What administrative 

activities are included in that estimate? 

(4) To what extent are administrative 

cost savings a factor in determining 

whether to elect CEP? 

(5) How do State policies related to 

offering free school meals for all 

students influence the likelihood of CEP 

election among newly eligible LEAs? 

Public comments received in response 

to the proposed rule helped inform the 

development of this final rule. 

II. Public Comments and USDA 

Response 

During the 45-day comment period 

(March 23-May 8, 2023), USDA received 

a total of 10,625 comments, including 

849 unique submissions and four form 

letters representing 8,689 submissions. 

Of the 10,625 comments, 1,087 were 

duplicate or non-germane submissions, 

resulting in 9,538 relevant comments. 

All comments, except non-germane 

comments, are posted online at 

www.regulations.gov (see docket FNS– 

2022–0044, Child Nutrition Programs: 

Community Eligibility ProvisionIncreasing Options for Schools). 

Relevant comments were submitted by 

Members of Congress, State and local 

government entities and elected 

officials, school districts and school 

staff, advocacy organizations, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

other stakeholders, including food 

banks, healthcare and health insurance 

organizations and healthcare 

professionals, professional and trade 

associations, the research community, 

faith-based organizations, and 

individual commenters and members of 

the public. USDA greatly appreciates 

the thoughtful comments provided. 

These comments were essential to the 

development of this final rule. 

Overall, including the form letters, 

almost 97 percent of comments 

supported the proposed rule (9,220 of 

9,538) and less than 1 percent opposed 

it (14 of 9,538); the remaining comments 

were mixed, offered conditional 

support, or were neutral, in that they 

were generally supportive of lowering 

the minimum ISP to 25 percent, but also 

discussed additional considerations for 

school meals and school nutrition 

departments. 

Comments in favor of lowering the 

minimum ISP to 25 percent cited 

benefits to children, families, schools, 

communities, and Program operators. 

Supporters noted that lowering the 

minimum ISP would increase student 

access to school meals and improve 

children’s food security, health, and 

academic performance. Many comments 

also supported the proposal for its 

administrative benefits to school 

districts and schools. 

Comments opposed to lowering the 

minimum ISP primarily focused on 

concerns about school finances and 

funding to support CEP or argued that 

the proposed 25 percent threshold was 

chosen arbitrarily and could expand 

CEP to schools serving communities 

that do not need assistance. 

Comments offering mixed or 

conditional support generally agreed 

with lowering the threshold, but also 

urged USDA to take additional measures 

to support and expand CEP (e.g., 

increase the CEP multiplier or make 

school meals available at no cost to 

students nationwide). The following 

discussion is a detailed summary of 

public comments by topic. 

Minimum ISP 

Proposed Change 

Under current regulations, the 

minimum ISP required to elect CEP is 

40 percent; therefore, to be eligible for 

CEP, an LEA, group of schools, or 

school must have an ISP greater than, or 

equal to, 40 percent (ISP ≥40 percent) as 

of April 1 of the school year prior to 

implementing CEP (7 CFR 245.9(f)(3)(i)). 

USDA proposed to amend 7 CFR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65780 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

245.9(f)(3)(i) to require an LEA, group of 

schools, or school to have an ISP of at 

least 25 percent, as of April 1 of the 

prior school year, to participate in CEP. 

Individual schools participating in CEP 

as part of a group would be permitted 

to have an ISP lower than 25 percent, 

provided that the group’s aggregate ISP 

is at least 25 percent. 

Public Comments 

USDA received 9,220 comments that 

were generally supportive of lowering 

the minimum ISP threshold to 25 

percent. Commenters supporting the 

lower threshold included: Members of 

Congress; State and local agencies; 

school districts and school staff; 

advocacy groups, trade associations, and 

individuals. Many commenters 

reasoned that the proposed change 

would expand CEP, allowing more 

students access to free, nourishing 

school meals. Further, commenters 

highlighted that expanding CEP could 

benefit numerous stakeholders by 

reducing hunger and food insecurity, 

improving students’ academic 

performance, increasing equity, 

reducing families’ financial burdens, 

and streamlining school meal 

operations. 

Many commenters who supported the 

rule discussed the importance of feeding 

schoolchildren equitably and 

supporting families. Numerous 

commenters, including advocacy 

groups, a food bank, trade associations, 

and individuals, noted that access to 

nutritious school meals is important to 

ensure educational equity, improve 

learning outcomes, and advance 

children’s intellectual and physical 

development. Some individual 

commenters asserted that student 

hunger has a significant impact on 

academic performance and outcomes. A 

form letter campaign emphasized that 

hungry schoolchildren cannot learn 

effectively, and that CEP helps to 

alleviate the negative impact of hunger 

on learning. Several commenters, 

including an advocacy group and 

individuals, expressed support for the 

proposed rule because, for many 

children, school meals are the only 

nutritious meals they have access to 

each day. Similarly, an advocacy group 

commented that CEP helps feed 

schoolchildren, while also increasing 

attendance and improving academic 

outcomes. Another advocacy group 

asserted that, without CEP, thousands of 

students would go hungry at school. 

One advocacy group cited research 

which found that universal school 

meals improved academic performance, 

reduced suspension among students, 

reduced household spending on 

groceries, and improved dietary quality 

at home. Similarly, some commenters, 

including a trade association and 

individuals, stated that lowering the 

minimum ISP would decrease 

children’s and families’ food insecurity. 

School staff and a few individual 

commenters said that lowering the 

minimum ISP to 25 percent would 

benefit their school districts because 

they are unable to participate in CEP at 

the 40 percent threshold, but they know 

students in their communities 

experience widespread food insecurity. 

A school district reported that 69 

percent of their students receive free 

and reduced price meals, but only three 

of 18 schools in the district qualify for 

CEP (two of which barely meet the 40 

percent threshold). Further, 

commenters, including a school board, 

suggested that lowering the minimum 

ISP would improve communities’ 

attitudes toward school meals and 

school nutrition programs. 

A couple of commenters, including a 

State and a local agency, noted that 

reducing the minimum ISP increases 

access and makes school meals more 

equitable among rural, Tribal, and 

underserved communities. Many 

commenters discussed the historical 

disadvantages, particularly food 

insecurity, faced by rural and 

underserved communities. For example, 

an advocacy group emphasized that 

‘‘Black and Brown communities 

experience food insecurity at higher 

rates’’ than their White counterparts due 

to systemic racial injustice. Some 

commenters reasoned that CEP has been 

useful in minimizing these 

disadvantages through access to free 

meals, especially among Latino and 

Black children. Additionally, a few 

commenters with first-hand CEP 

experience, including a school and an 

advocacy group, stated that when meals 

were available at no cost to all students, 

significantly more students opted to 

participate in school meals and the 

school culture improved. Notably, a 

form letter campaign said that 

expanding access to CEP is a ‘‘great step 

forward’’ to improve equity, 

accessibility, and nutrition in school 

meals. 

Many commenters, including a State 

agency, an advocacy group, a 

professional association, and 

individuals, stated that CEP helps 

reduce the prevalence of unpaid meal 

debt, and some commenters, including 

a school and individual commenters, 

cited the elimination of unpaid meal 

charges and student meal debt as a 

primary reason they support lowering 

the minimum ISP. Many commenters, 

including a local government, school 

districts, a trade association, 

individuals, and a form letter campaign, 

expressed support for decreasing the 

minimum ISP, as it would provide 

‘‘peace of mind’’ to parents and children 

by eliminating the cost of school meals. 

Commenters also support lowering 

the minimum ISP because it reduces 

administrative burden and gives school 

districts more options for operating 

school meal programs to best serve their 

communities. Several commenters, 

including a State agency and local 

agency, school districts and schools, a 

trade association and an individual, 

supported lowering the minimum ISP 

because it would significantly reduce 

administrative burden. A couple of State 

agencies said that the proposed change 

would help their States’ small and rural 

schools, which serve many critical roles 

for isolated, rural communities and 

often struggle with higher per-meal 

administrative costs because of their 

small size. Commenters also recognized 

that expanding CEP would help schools 

and school nutrition staff operate the 

SBP and NSLP more efficiently and 

would allow them to focus more on 

local purchasing, farm-to-school 

initiatives, and scratch cooking. 

Additionally, many commenters, 

including a local agency, schools and 

school staff, advocacy groups, a trade 

association, and individuals, expressed 

support for the proposal because 

lowering the minimum ISP would give 

schools greater flexibility in operational 

decisions, in addition to providing more 

enrolled students with no-cost meals. 

While still supportive, commenters 

discussed how funding to operate 

school meal programs via CEP at the 

proposed 25 percent minimum ISP 

would be challenging. Several 

commenters asserted that the proposed 

lower minimum ISP will not be 

financially viable for many school 

districts without a concurrent increase 

in the CEP multiplier. A few 

commenters suggested that to offset the 

burden of costs, USDA should allow 

statewide CEP participation so that CEP 

administration and any costs can be 

shared among school districts within a 

State and are not placed on individual 

school districts. 

In addition, several supportive 

commenters expressed concerns about 

the loss of free and reduced price 

eligibility data—frequently used for 

education funding—that occurs in CEP 

schools when applications are 

eliminated. For example, an advocacy 

group commented that schools that do 

not process school meal applications 

will need to navigate how to adjust 

policies that previously relied on 

household application data but 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65781 

10U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2022). USDA 

Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics 

Study, School Year 2016–2017. OMB #0584–0612, 

expiration 9/30/2019. Available at https://

www.fns.usda.gov/cn/usda-cep-characteristicsstudy-sy-2016-17. 

reasoned that this is true at any ISP 

level. Other commenters recommended 

that USDA work with other Federal 

partners to assess alternative poverty 

measures. 

Despite overwhelming support for 

lowering the minimum ISP to 25 

percent, approximately 300 

commenters, including a State agency, 

advocacy groups, and individuals, 

provided mixed feedback or conditional 

support. Many noted that successful 

implementation of CEP in schools with 

lower ISPs requires additional funding. 

A school staff commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed change to 

CEP would lead communities and 

school boards to believe it is financially 

viable for districts with a 25 percent ISP 

to elect CEP. Some commenters 

suggested increasing the CEP multiplier, 

while others thought the rule did not go 

far enough, suggesting further lowering 

the minimum ISP, eliminating the 

minimum ISP completely in States 

where there is identified State funding 

to support CEP, and providing universal 

school meals at no cost to all students 

nationwide. 

Though most commenters supported 

lowering the minimum ISP to 25 

percent, 14 commenters expressed 

opposition to the proposed change. 

Many commenters opposed to lowering 

the minimum ISP expressed concern 

that expanding CEP might financially 

burden schools and school nutrition 

programs in cases where Federal 

reimbursements fall short of Program 

operating costs. Of these, about half 

expressed that the proposed lower 

minimum ISP would not be financially 

viable without increasing the CEP 

multiplier. Opposing commenters, 

including a school district and 

individual commenters, remarked that 

the proposed change would not 

encourage more schools to implement 

CEP because of its economic 

infeasibility. Similar to commenters 

with mixed feedback on the rule, a 

school district asserted that the CEP 

multiplier needs to be increased from 

1.6 to at least 2.0 or higher. The district 

added that lowering the minimum ISP, 

without increasing the multiplier, 

would only assist schools that have the 

financial means to help pay the 

‘‘nutrition bills.’’ An individual 

commenter expressed concern that the 

lower minimum ISP would not simplify 

determinations for severe need 

payments in the SBP or allow more 

schools to participate in CEP. The 

commenter concluded by expressing 

concern that the 25 percent minimum 

ISP was chosen arbitrarily. One 

commenter expressed concern about 

government overreach and suggested 

that State and local agencies are better 

suited to address free meals. Another 

individual stated that the proposed rule 

promotes socialism, adding that social 

services should be involved to provide 

meals while simultaneously assessing 

students’ home environments. Finally, a 

school nutrition director stated that 

expanding CEP to a student population 

that does not have an economic need is 

not an efficient use of funds, and an 

advocacy group asserted that lowering 

the minimum ISP significantly expands 

CEP in a way that is inconsistent with 

the intent of the Federal meal programs 

because it could result in more middleand upper-income students receiving 

taxpayer-funded meals. 

Thirty commenters responded to the 

question, ‘‘to what extent are LEAs that 

would be newly eligible under this 

proposed rule expected to elect CEP?’’ 

Of these, the majority provided 

estimates of the number of schools 

expected to be newly eligible. Some 

commenters shared that, although more 

schools would be eligible, they would 

likely not elect CEP without an increase 

to the CEP multiplier. Other 

commenters responded that newly 

eligible schools in their States would 

elect CEP due to the availability of State 

funding to cover any costs that exceed 

Federal assistance. One State agency did 

not indicate how many more schools 

would participate in CEP, but expressed 

concern that many newly eligible 

schools may not initially understand the 

financial impacts of electing CEP at a 

lower ISP threshold. 

Additionally, approximately 15 

commenters responded to the question, 

‘‘what sources of non-Federal funds are 

available to support LEAs electing CEP 

at lower ISPs?’’ The majority of 

commenters responding to this question 

indicated there is State or local funding 

available to help cover costs. A State 

agency said that non-Federal sources in 

their State include angel funds (local or 

community donations). Another State 

reported there are no State funds 

available to pay for the cost of meals not 

covered by Federal assistance. Finally, 

an advocacy group emphasized that, for 

their area, the availability of State and 

local funds varies greatly based on 

school-level factors, such as enrollment 

and student participation in school meal 

programs. 

USDA Response 

USDA concurs with commenters who 

stated that lowering the minimum ISP is 

expected to significantly benefit 

students, families, schools, and 

communities. USDA’s CEP 

Characteristics Study found that LEAs 

participating in CEP reported multiple 

perceived benefits, including increased 

student participation, decreased 

financial burden on families, 

elimination of unpaid meal debt, 

reduced administrative burden, and 

decreased stigma for students in need.10

USDA also understands that lowering 

the minimum ISP to 25 percent is 

expected to result in more schools being 

eligible for CEP; yet, without additional 

State or local funding, electing CEP at 

lower ISPs may not be financially viable 

for many schools. 

Non-CEP LEAs and schools that serve 

high proportions of low-income 

children are expending alreadyconstrained resources to collect and 

process school meal applications to 

ensure low-income students have access 

to free or reduced price meals. Lowering 

the minimum ISP to 25 percent provides 

an opportunity for more LEAs with high 

proportions of low-income students— 

especially those with non-Federal funds 

available to support school meals—to 

capitalize on CEP’s administrative and 

operational benefits, while maintaining 

CEP’s intent to provide schools serving 

high poverty areas with opportunity to 

offer healthy, no-cost school meals to all 

students. This is particularly applicable 

to LEAs and schools in States with 

healthy school meals for all initiatives; 

in these States, students already have 

access to meals at no cost and now the 

lower minimum ISP will allow more 

schools to experience the administrative 

and operational benefits of CEP. 

Healthy school meals for all 

initiatives, supported by State funding, 

are gaining momentum across the 

nation. Currently, eight States have 

permanent policies in place, more than 

20 States are actively pursuing healthy 

school meals for all legislation, and 63 

percent of voters nationwide support 

legislation that would make school 

meals permanently available to all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65782 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

11Food Research and Action Center, Healthy 

School Meals for All website. Available at: https:// 

frac.org/healthy-school-meals-for-all. 

12U.S. Department of Agriculture, Priorities 

website. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/

priorities#:∼:text=Tackling%20Food%20and

%20Nutrition%20Insecurity,-At%20USDA%2C

%20we. 

13 Visit the CEP Resource Center for more 

information: Community Eligibility Provision 

Resource Center | Food and Nutrition Service 

(usda.gov). 

14National Forum on Education Statistics (2015). 

Forum Guide to Alternative Measures of 

Socioeconomic Status in Education Data Systems 

(NFES 2015–158). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ 

pubs2015/2015158.pdf. 

15USDA’s CEP Characteristics Study found that 

SBP participation increased by about 12 percent in 

LEAs operating CEP (compared to similar, eligible 

LEAs that did not elect CEP). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (2022). USDA Community Eligibility 

Provision Characteristics Study, School Year 2016– 

2017. OMB #0584–0612, expiration 9/30/2019. 

Available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/usda-cepcharacteristics-study-sy-2016-17. 

students at no cost.11 These initiatives 

align with USDA’s priority to tackle 

food and nutrition insecurity: USDA is 

leveraging all resources to ensure 

consistent and equitable access to 

healthy, safe, affordable foods essential 

to optimal health and well-being.12

Expanding schools’ access to CEP—and 

providing students access to a 

nourishing breakfast and lunch each 

school day—is an important action 

USDA can take to support those efforts. 

USDA acknowledges that lowering 

the minimum ISP is not accompanied 

by additional funding and that, for the 

most part, school districts and schools 

that are newly eligible under the 25 

percent threshold may need additional 

non-Federal funds for CEP to be 

financially viable. However, USDA 

supports CEP expansion in States and 

localities where non-Federal funding is 

available to support healthy school 

meals at no charge for all students. 

As detailed earlier, the CEP multiplier 

is used to calculate the percentage of 

breakfasts and lunches to be claimed 

and reimbursed at the Federal free rate 

at CEP schools. Section 

11(a)(1)(F)(vii)(II) of the NSLA provides 

the Secretary the option to establish the 

CEP multiplier between 1.3 and 1.6. 

Accordingly, USDA established 1.6 as 

the multiplier to be used to determine 

CEP claiming percentages for an entire 

4-year CEP cycle (7 CFR 245.9(f)(4)(vi)). 

Increasing the multiplier to provide 

more funding to CEP schools (in the 

form of a higher free claiming 

percentage) would require 

Congressional action; USDA does not 

have statutory authority to increase the 

multiplier any further. Similarly, USDA 

does not have the authority to allow a 

statewide CEP option. Section 

11(a)(1)(F)(x) of the NSLA requires CEP 

to be elected at the LEA-level. 

Electing CEP is a local decision, not 

a Federal mandate; as a result, the 

financial viability of participating in 

CEP must be evaluated based on the 

unique circumstances of each 

individual school district. If the total 

amount of Federal assistance available 

does not fully cover the cost of offering 

all students meals at no charge, LEAs 

must contribute non-Federal funds (7 

CFR 245.9(f)(4)(vii)). The use of nonFederal funds is not required if all 

operating costs are covered by the 

Federal reimbursement and other 

assistance provided under the NSLA 

and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1759a (a)(1)(F)(ii)(I)(bb)). 

Additionally, school food authorities 

(SFAs) may use excess funds in the nonprofit school food service account to 

support CEP (7 CFR 210.14(a)). 

When deciding whether to elect CEP, 

eligible schools must consider their 

ability to provide meals at no cost and 

cover their operating costs with Federal 

assistance and any other available 

funds, including State and/or local 

funds. USDA has an updated estimator 

tool to help LEAs determine if CEP is 

financially viable, and to help assess 

LEA groupings to optimize Federal 

reimbursements. The estimator tool is 

available at the CEP Resource Center 

(https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/ 

community-eligibility-provisionresource-center). 

With respect to concerns regarding 

the loss of free and reduced price 

eligibility data, USDA understands that 

many entities have historically relied on 

data from free and reduced price school 

meal applications as a school- or school 

district-based poverty measure and/or 

means of allocating education funding. 

Since CEP’s inception in 2011, USDA 

has worked extensively to ensure that 

State agencies and eligible LEAs are 

aware of alternative means of assessing 

socioeconomic status. USDA has 

coordinated meetings and webinars to 

share best practices related to assessing 

socioeconomic status in the absence of 

household applications.13 In addition, 

USDA worked with the National Forum 

on Education Statistics to develop a 

guide on alternative measures of 

socioeconomic status for use in 

education data systems.14 USDA 

continues to work with the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics, on an 

ongoing basis, to discuss and identify 

school-based poverty measures that 

have potential to serve as alternatives to 

free and reduced price application data. 

USDA encourages stakeholders at the 

State and local levels to pursue similar 

conversations to ensure that electing 

CEP, and the loss of application data, 

does not result in reduced education 

funding or benefits to CEP school 

districts, schools, or students. 

USDA has discretion to establish a 

minimum ISP that is lower than 40 

percent (42 U.S.C. 

1759a(a)(1)(F)(viii)(II)). In addition to 

public comments, to determine an 

appropriate threshold, USDA 

considered operational factors, 

including characteristics of LEAs 

currently eligible and near eligible to 

elect CEP, and analyzed the 

composition of the ISP and the 

proportion of free and reduced price 

students at varying ISP levels. Based on 

these analyses, a minimum ISP of 25 

percent results in at least 40 percent of 

meals reimbursed at the free rate (25 

percent × 1.6 = 40 percent). Schools 

where at least 40 percent of the lunches 

served to students in the second 

preceding school year were free or 

reduced price qualify as severe need 

schools and receive an additional 

reimbursement (42 U.S.C. 1773(d)(1)(A); 

7 CFR 220.9(d)(2)). Aligning the CEP 

threshold with the severe need 

payments threshold provides 

consistency because all CEP-eligible 

schools will qualify for severe need 

reimbursements. In addition, CEP’s 

positive impact on school breakfast 

participation further supports the 

SBP.15

Given the broad stakeholder support 

for lowering the minimum ISP to 25 

percent—and the potential benefit to 

children, families, schools, and 

communities—USDA is adopting the 

lower, 25 percent minimum ISP in this 

final rule. Accordingly, this final rule 

amends the CEP provisions at 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(3)(i) to reflect a 25 percent 

minimum ISP. 

Conforming Amendments to Grace Year 

and Identification/Notification 

Requirements 

Proposed Change 

To conform with the proposed 25 

percent ISP threshold in 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(3), USDA proposed to amend 7 

CFR 245.9(f)(4)(ix), the regulations 

governing grace years, to allow an LEA, 

group of schools, or school in the fourth 

year of the 4-year CEP cycle with an ISP 

of less than 25 percent but equal to or 

greater than 15 percent (as of April 1 of 

the fourth year of a CEP cycle) to 

continue using CEP for an additional 

‘‘fifth year’’ or a ‘‘grace year’’ beyond the 

4-year CEP cycle. In addition, USDA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65783 

16Food Research & Action Center. Community 

Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools, School 

Year 2022–23 (May 2023). Available at: https://

frac.org/wp-content/uploads/cep-report-2023.pdf. 

proposed to amend 7 CFR 245.9(f)(5) 

and (6), the regulations governing LEA 

and State agency identification and 

notification requirements, and 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(7)(i) and (ii), the regulations 

governing State agency public 

notification requirements. USDA only 

proposed changes to the numbers (i.e., 

40 percent to 25 percent, 30 percent to 

15 percent) consistent with the 

proposed lower threshold and statutory 

requirements (42 U.S.C. 

1759a(a)(1)(F)(v)(I), (a)(1)(F)(x)); no 

additional substantive changes were 

proposed. 

Public Comments 

USDA received eight comments 

pertaining to these conforming changes 

and all comments were supportive. A 

State agency noted that the grace year 

flexibility would allow schools an extra 

year to attempt to meet the 25 percent 

ISP threshold to remain on CEP. In 

addition, an advocacy group suggested 

that USDA should require States to use 

the actual counts of identified students 

as opposed to proxy data to ensure more 

accurate lists and notifications. 

USDA Response 

USDA appreciates one commenter’s 

suggestion to change requirements 

related to the data that States use for 

notification purposes. However, this 

rulemaking only changes the numbers 

(e.g., 40 percent to 25 percent, 30 

percent to 15 percent) consistent with 

the lower ISP threshold and statutory 

requirements (42 U.S.C. 

1759a(a)(1)(F)(v)(I), (a)(1)(F)(x)); no 

additional substantive changes are made 

by this rulemaking. Therefore, under 

this final rule, USDA will continue to 

allow States to use proxy data for CEP 

notification purposes. Consistent with 

current requirements, actual counts of 

identified students must be used for 

CEP elections. 

Given the support for these changes 

and the statutory requirement that these 

provisions conform to the final 

threshold, this final rule modifies the 

following regulations to align with the 

25 percent ISP threshold in 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(3): 

• 7 CFR 245.9(f)(4)(ix), the 

regulations governing the use of CEP for 

a grace year; 

• 7 CFR 245.9(f)(5) and (6), the 

regulations governing LEA and State 

agency identification and notification 

requirements; and 

• 7 CFR 245.9(f)(7)(i) and (ii), the 

regulations governing State agency 

public notification requirements. 

Comments on Other CEP-Related Items 

Healthy School Meals for All 

Public Comments 

Approximately 330 commenters 

discussed healthy school meals for all 

initiatives; many of those commenters, 

including a professional association and 

individuals, expressed general support 

for providing all students with no-cost, 

healthy school meals. Several 

commenters, including a trade 

association and a form letter campaign, 

stated that the proposed rule is an 

improvement on existing CEP 

requirements and represents a positive 

step toward universal, no-cost meals for 

all students. A form letter campaign 

applauded the proposed CEP expansion 

and its potential to enable more schools 

and districts across the country to 

provide school meals at no charge to all 

students, closing a gap in healthy food 

access for many children and families, 

especially those in need. However, some 

commenters, including school staff, 

advocacy groups, and individuals, noted 

that a nationwide program making 

school meals available at no charge for 

all students would be preferable over 

lowering the minimum ISP. 

Several commenters highlighted that 

the proposed change to CEP would 

support the growing number of States 

choosing to invest funding to provide 

no-cost school meals to all children. A 

few commenters, including a school 

district and individuals, commented 

that lowering the minimum ISP to 25 

percent would give States and schools 

greater flexibility to choose to invest 

non-Federal funds to offer no-cost meals 

to all enrolled students. An individual 

representing a non-profit organization 

stated that the proposed change creates 

an ‘‘easier entry point’’ for States to 

adopt their own universal, no-cost 

meals policies in a more balanced and 

sustainable way. The commenter 

continued, declaring that a lower 

minimum ISP would support the 

growing number of States that are 

choosing to invest their own funds to 

provide free school meals to all 

students, through maximizing LEA use 

of CEP in combination with Statespecific initiatives. Conversely, one 

State agency shared that, in their State, 

State funding is not available to 

encourage lower ISP schools to adopt 

CEP, and concerns exist regarding 

whether some schools have sufficient 

financial support to be able to 

implement CEP at lower ISPs. 

Approximately 15 commenters 

responded to the question, ‘‘how do 

State policies related to offering free 

school meals for all students influence 

the likelihood of CEP election among 

newly eligible LEAs?’’ A couple of 

commenters stated that the proposed 

rule provides more options to LEAs and 

State agencies in those States that 

incentivize CEP adoption through State 

legislation. Some commenters, 

including State agencies and advocacy 

groups, asserted that LEAs in States 

with existing healthy school meals for 

all legislation, or significant non-Federal 

funding sources, will see an increase in 

CEP participation because they do not 

have to reconcile significant budgetary 

gaps. One State agency commented that 

the State’s policies neither require nor 

discourage districts to participate in 

CEP, and another State agency noted 

that LEAs will need to assess how 

current application-based 

reimbursements compare to CEP’s direct 

certification-based reimbursements 

because eliminating applications may 

affect school districts and States 

differently, depending on their policies. 

Additionally, one State agency asserted 

that without State funding to support 

free school meal programs, newly 

eligible LEAs would not be likely to 

participate in CEP because it would not 

be financially viable. 

USDA Response 

USDA anticipates that LEAs most 

likely to elect CEP at the 25 percent ISP 

are those in States that have committed 

to offering healthy school meals for all 

through State funding. Numerous public 

comments submitted by States support 

this assumption. The Colorado 

Department of Education confirmed 

that, to opt-in to the State’s Healthy 

School Meals for All Program and 

receive additional State funding, 

qualifying schools are required to elect 

CEP. In its comment, the Minnesota 

Department of Education noted that, 

while the State will not require school 

districts to participate in CEP under the 

recently passed Minnesota Free School 

Meals Program, it anticipates ‘‘schools 

will be interested in adopting CEP at a 

lower threshold to have the option to 

streamline meal counting and 

claiming.’’ A recent publication from 

the Food Research and Action Center 

has also found that States offering free 

meals to all students in school year (SY) 

2022–23 experienced significant 

increases in CEP uptake.16

USDA estimates that as many as 2,090 

schools in 471 LEAs across California, 

Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, and New 

Mexico, all of which have implemented 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

17USDA only included States with permanent 

legislation at the time of the analysis. 

18 Data from FNS–742: School Food Authority 

Verification Collection Report, available at: https:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/form/school-food-authority-sfaverification-collection-report. 

19Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free 

Schools (School Year 2022–2023). May 2023. Food 

Research and Action Center. Available at: https:// 

frac.org/cep-report-2023. 

healthy school meals for all policies for 

SY 2023–24, would elect to participate 

in CEP under the 25 percent ISP.17

Estimates are based on the School Food 

Authority Verification Collection 

Report, found at: https://

www.fns.usda.gov/form/school-foodauthority-sfa-verification-collectionreport. Specifically, the analysis used 

2023 data related to student enrollment, 

direct certification, free and reduced 

price claiming percentages, and CEP 

participation status.18

A recent report on CEP uptake 

showed that the number of students in 

schools participating in CEP has 

increased annually since 2014, with the 

greatest increases occurring more 

recently.19 In SY 2021–22, there were 

16.2 million students in CEP schools; in 

SY 2022–23, there were 19.9 million. 

California was the greatest contributor, 

adding more than 1.3 million students 

to the total enrolled in CEP schools. The 

percentage of eligible schools adopting 

CEP also increased from 75.3 percent to 

99.5 percent in California during this 

time. In all but one of the seven States 

offering free meals to all students during 

SY 2022–23 through State funding 

(California, Connecticut, Maine, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont), the 

percentage of eligible schools 

participating in CEP was 92 percent or 

higher. The percentage of participating 

eligible CEP schools in Massachusetts, 

the remaining State, was 87 percent. 

High CEP participation rates in States 

providing free school meals to all 

students is consistent with the feedback 

submitted in public comments and 

supports USDA’s assumption that 

school districts in these States are most 

likely to benefit from, and take 

advantage of, the 25 percent ISP. 

USDA is fully committed to ensuring 

all children have access to healthy 

school meals. Lowering the minimum 

ISP provides States and LEAs greater 

flexibility to combine CEP with State 

initiatives to simplify Program 

administration, reduce burden, and offer 

meals to all students at no charge. 

Costs & Cost Savings 

Public Comments 

LEAs assume significant 

responsibility to administer school meal 

programs and, in response to the 

proposed rule, respondents submitted 

several comments and questions related 

to costs and cost savings. One advocacy 

group stated that reducing the minimum 

ISP—even to zero—will not appreciably 

drive up Federal costs because 

reimbursements are tied to the ISP, and 

that schools or districts with lower ISPs 

will receive lower Federal 

reimbursements and will have to cover 

remaining costs with non-Federal funds. 

Another advocacy group commented 

that the lower minimum ISP would 

result in additional government 

spending annually. 

Numerous commenters stated that, in 

general, CEP helps reduce 

administrative costs. Many commenters, 

including Members of Congress, a State 

agency, a local government, school 

districts, advocacy groups, and form 

letter campaigns, said that CEP helps 

reduce administrative and paperwork 

costs, and streamlines Program 

operations for LEAs and schools. Some 

commenters, including advocacy groups 

and a form letter campaign, added that 

administrative cost savings allow school 

officials to focus resources on core SBP 

and NSLP mission-oriented tasks, such 

as planning and preparing healthy 

meals for students. Similarly, some 

commenters, including State and local 

agencies, advocacy groups, and a trade 

association, remarked that the reduced 

administrative burden from CEP helps 

schools focus on investing in operations 

and meal program improvements, such 

as scratch cooking or farm-to-school 

programs. One staff member of a public 

charter school noted that if the school 

were eligible for CEP, the school would 

save a minimum of $50,000 per year in 

administrative staff costs. Commenters 

remarked that CEP reduces costs for 

schools because, as a result of increased 

student participation, it leverages 

economies of scale in food purchasing 

and preparation. An advocacy group 

and a trade association concluded that 

administrative savings resulting from 

CEP help schools combat rising food 

prices, focus on serving quality meals, 

and invest in school nutrition programs. 

Furthermore, a State explained that by 

reducing administrative costs, CEP 

helps ensure a greater share of each 

meal reimbursement is spent directly on 

food and food preparation. Some 

commenters, including an advocacy 

group and a trade association, asserted 

that lowering the minimum ISP would 

reduce State costs associated with 

expanding school meal access and 

would help sustain recently enacted 

healthy school meals for all programs, if 

State fiscal conditions change. 

An advocacy group suggested that 

schools with higher ISPs can adopt CEP 

without relying on non-Federal funds 

because administrative savings often 

offset the loss of revenue from student 

payments but recognized that may not 

be the case for districts with lower ISPs. 

Another advocacy group stated that 

expansion of CEP will pay for itself by 

reducing administrative burden and 

increasing Program efficiency. A school 

district warned that access to CEP may 

not reduce paperwork as much as 

expected because paperwork will still 

be required for other Federal programs. 

Six commenters responded to the 

question: ‘‘In a typical year, how much 

time do LEAs spend on administrative 

duties that may be eliminated by 

electing CEP (e.g., processing 

applications, managing unpaid meal 

charges, conducting verification)? What 

administrative activities are included in 

that estimate?’’ Two State agencies 

commented generally that CEP would 

reduce LEAs’ time spent on processing 

applications and verification activities. 

In addition, two State agencies 

acknowledged that the time spent on 

applications varies by school district 

size, with one estimating the number of 

hours would vary from as few as 12 

hours per school year to almost 50 

percent of a full-time equivalent. One 

school district reported that hundreds of 

hours of work are spent each year 

processing free and reduced price 

applications, including dealing with 

unpaid meal debt and other activities. 

Similarly, another school district 

estimated that 490 hours per year are 

dedicated to the application process. 

One school district reported that, after 

adopting CEP at several (but not all) 

schools, time spent on processing 

applications was cut ‘‘nearly in half.’’ 

Six commenters responded to the 

question, ‘‘to what extent are 

administrative cost savings a factor in 

determining whether to elect CEP?’’ 

Some of the commenters stated that 

administrative cost savings were a 

determining factor, while others 

depended more on cafeteria operations 

or the capacity to serve no-cost meals as 

a primary factor in deciding to elect 

CEP. 

USDA Response 

USDA analyzed administrative data 

and relied on information from public 

comments and stakeholder engagement, 

to examine the economic impacts (i.e., 

costs) of lowering the minimum ISP to 

25 percent. Historically, CEP has not 

been a significant driver of Federal 

costs. CEP became available nationwide 

in SY 2014–15; during that school year 

and in subsequent school years, the 

number of schools electing CEP—and, 

as a result, students in CEP schools— 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65785 

20USDA limited its analysis to fiscal year (FY) 

2015–FY 2019 due to the impacts of nationwide 

child nutrition waivers, which were provided to 

ensure access to meals through the Child Nutrition 

Programs as communities responded to the COVID– 

19 pandemic. Cash payments for NSLP and SBP 

were $15.6 billion in FY 2015 and $17.4 billion in 

FY 2019. 

21For a full discussion of the impacts of this final 

rule on information collection requirements, please 

refer to the Paperwork Reduction Act section. 

22U.S. Department of Agriculture (2022). USDA 

Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics 

Study, School Year 2016–2017. OMB #0584–0612, 

expiration 9/30/2019. Available at https://www.fns.

usda.gov/cn/usda-cep-characteristics-study-sy2016-17. 

23 Ibid. 

24Assistance listings are detailed public 

descriptions of Federal programs that provide 

grants, loans, scholarships, insurance, and other 

types of assistance awards. More information is 

available at: https://sam.gov/content/home. 

grew significantly. However, since the 

CEP multiplier is designed to, on 

average, mirror the free and reduced 

price percentage, claiming meals merely 

shifted from free and reduced pricebased claiming to ISP-based claiming 

with no significant impact on Federal 

costs. 

The number of students in CEP 

schools more than doubled, from 6.5 

million in SY 2014–2015 to 13.7 million 

in SY 2018–2019. During this same time 

period, the annual growth rate in school 

meal earnings (i.e., costs) was about 3 

percent.20 Most of the annual growth 

was due to an annual inflation rate of 

2.2 to 3 percent during this period. 

USDA anticipates that CEP uptake as a 

result of the 25 percent minimum ISP 

will be significantly smaller than 

typical, historical year-over-year CEP 

increases due to the financial 

considerations LEAs must weigh when 

deciding to elect CEP at lower ISPs. 

Therefore, based on these analyses, 

USDA does not agree with the 

commenter that indicated there would 

be large increases in Federal 

Government spending from this CEP 

expansion. 

The decision to elect CEP is the result 

of a cost-benefit analysis specific to 

eligible LEAs. State initiatives, such as 

healthy school meals for all, make it 

easier for LEAs to elect CEP due to the 

additional State funding. Administrative 

cost savings associated with CEP are a 

significant factor that may make CEP 

economically viable for many LEAs, as 

indicated in several comments. 

USDA estimates administrative cost 

savings of $103,869, based on a total 

annual reduction of 5,679 burden hours 

and a $18.29 median hourly rate for 

Office and Administrative Support 

Occupations in Educational Services.21

Actual decreases in administrative 

burden will vary by LEA based on 

factors such as student enrollment, 

current percentage of students eligible 

for free and reduced price meals, local 

wage rates, and current mode of 

operation before electing CEP (e.g., 

Provision 2 or 3). Though some 

commenters indicated that systems may 

need to be updated or reprogrammed to 

accommodate the new minimum ISP for 

CEP, USDA expects that these costs 

would be limited to one-time, system 

modification costs. 

USDA understands that newly eligible 

school districts and schools may have 

questions about implementing CEP at a 

lower ISP. USDA plans to issue 

guidance related to the lower minimum 

ISP to help LEAs and schools make 

informed decisions about electing CEP. 

USDA, in collaboration with Federal 

and State agency partners, stands ready 

to provide support, customer service, 

and technical assistance to school 

districts interested in electing CEP at all 

eligibility levels. 

Procedural Matters 

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. This final 

rule has been determined to be not 

significant and was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) in conformance with Executive 

Order 12866. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This final rule has been designated as 

not significant by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Therefore, no 

Regulatory Impact Analysis is required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612) requires Agencies to 

analyze the impact of rulemaking on 

small entities and consider alternatives 

that would minimize any significant 

impacts on a substantial number of 

small entities. Pursuant to that review, 

it has been certified that this final rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The provisions of this final rule are 

intended to reflect the operational needs 

of LEAs of all sizes. No specific 

additional burdens are placed on small 

LEAs seeking to operate CEP. USDA’s 

2022 CEP Characteristics Study found 

that 36 percent of LEAs participating in 

CEP in SY 2016–17 were single-school 

LEAs; 32 percent of participating LEAs 

were in rural areas; and 83 percent 

served fewer than 5,000 students.22 For 

smaller LEAs, the decision to elect CEP 

may be a simpler process and/or involve 

gaining approvals from fewer governing 

bodies. Additionally, CEP is an optional 

provision, and there is no requirement 

for LEAs to participate. 

Currently, many small LEAs 

participate in CEP; in SY 2016–17, 1,939 

of the 4,263 school districts (45 percent) 

electing CEP had enrollments of 999 or 

less.23

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) established 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments, and the private sector. 

Under section 202 of UMRA, USDA 

generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, or 

Tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $146 million or 

more (when adjusted for inflation; gross 

domestic product (GDP) deflator source: 

Table 1.1.9 at https://www.bea.gov/ 

iTable) in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, section 

205 of UMRA generally requires USDA 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, more costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This final rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of URMA) for 

State, local and Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, of $146 million or 

more in any one year. Therefore, this 

final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The NSLP and SBP are assigned 

Assistance Listing Numbers—NSLP 

(10.555) and SBP (10.553)—and are 

subject to Executive Order 12372, which 

requires intergovernmental consultation 

with State and local officials (see 2 CFR 

chapter IV).24 Since the child nutrition 

programs are State-administered, 

USDA’s FNS Regional Offices have 

formal and informal discussions with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

State and local officials, including 

representatives of Indian Tribal 

Organizations, on an ongoing basis 

regarding program requirements and 

operations. This provides USDA with 

the opportunity to receive regular input 

from program administrators and 

contributes to the development of 

feasible program requirements. 

Federalism Summary Impact Statement 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

The Department has determined that 

this final rule does not have federalism 

implications. Electing CEP is a local 

decision, not a Federal mandate, and 

lowering the minimum ISP from 40 

percent to 25 percent does not limit 

State or local policymaking discretion. 

Furthermore, this final rule does not 

impose substantial or direct compliance 

costs on State and local governments. 

Therefore, under section 6(b) of the 

Executive order, a Federalism summary 

impact statement is not required. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This final rule is 

intended to have preemptive effect with 

respect to any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies which conflict 

with its provisions or which would 

otherwise impede its full 

implementation. However, USDA does 

not expect significant inconsistencies 

between this final rule and existing 

State or local regulations regarding the 

provision of school food service 

operations under CEP. This final rule 

would permit schools to elect CEP if 

their ISP is greater than or equal to 25 

percent. Per statutory requirements 

outlined in the NSLA, State agencies 

operating the Federal school meal 

programs may not bar an eligible LEA 

from CEP participation. Additionally, 

States may not set an eligibility 

threshold lower than an ISP of 25 

percent for participation in CEP. This 

final rule is not intended to have 

retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial 

challenge to the provisions of this final 

rule or the application of its provisions, 

all applicable administrative procedures 

must be exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

USDA has reviewed the final rule, in 

accordance with Departmental 

Regulation 4300–004, ‘‘Civil Rights 

Impact Analysis,’’ to identify and 

address any major civil rights impacts 

the final rule might have on participants 

on the basis of age, race, color, national 

origin, sex, and disability. The FNS 

Civil Rights Division finds that the 

current mitigation and outreach 

strategies outlined in the regulations 

and this Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

(CRIA) provide ample consideration to 

participants’ ability to participate in the 

NSLP and SBP. The promulgation of 

this final rule will expand access to nocost meals for all enrolled students at 

participating CEP schools by lowering 

the minimum participation threshold. 

As previously outlined, the final rule is 

likely to impact the growing number of 

minority students and families 

attending participating schools that face 

a greater risk of food insecurity and 

health disparities by providing 

sustained nutritious food and reducing 

families’ paperwork burdens. The 

changes implemented by this final rule 

are likely to impact participating LEAs 

and SFAs by providing greater 

flexibility to offer no-cost meals to 

students, which would further support 

eliminating unpaid meal debt, 

minimizing stigma, streamlining meal 

service operations, and reducing 

paperwork for school nutrition staff. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

Federal agencies to consult and 

coordinate with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

USDA provides regularly scheduled 

consultation sessions as a venue for 

collaborative conversations with Tribal 

officials or their designees. This rule 

was discussed during the consultation 

on May 23, 2023. Tribal members 

supported this rule and indicated their 

belief that lowering the minimum ISP 

will increase access to the program. 

USDA is unaware of any current Tribal 

laws that could be in conflict with the 

final rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 

1320) requires that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approve all collection of information 

requirements by a Federal agency before 

they can be implemented. Respondents 

are not required to respond to any 

collection of information unless it 

displays a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. This rulemaking expands 

access to the Community Eligibility 

Provision (CEP) by lowering the 

minimum identified student percentage 

(ISP) participation threshold from 40 

percent to 25 percent, which would give 

States and schools greater flexibility to 

choose to invest non-Federal funds to 

offer no-cost meals to all enrolled 

students. As a result, more students, 

families, and schools will have an 

opportunity to experience the benefits 

of CEP, including access to meals at no 

cost, eliminating unpaid meal charges, 

minimizing stigma, reducing paperwork 

for school nutrition staff and families, 

and streamlining meal service 

operations. 

In accordance with the PRA, this final 

rule would revise existing information 

collection requirements, which are 

subject to review and approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

These existing information collection 

requirements are currently approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026, 

7 CFR Part 245—Determining Eligibility 

for Free & Reduced Price Meals and Free 

Milk in Schools, which expired on July 

31, 2023 (a renewal of OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 has been submitted 

to OMB for review). Revisions to the 

currently approved information 

collection requirements will result in a 

decrease in burden on State and local 

program operators, as well as 

participating households. To ensure that 

the review of this final rule does not 

interfere with the renewal of OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, FNS is 

requesting a new OMB Control Number 

for the existing information 

requirements that are impacted by this 

final rule. Therefore, the provisions 

outlined in this rule will initially be 

shown as increases to the information 

collection inventory. After OMB has 

approved the information collection 

requirements submitted in conjunction 

with the final rule and after the renewal 

of OMB Control Number 0584–0026 is 

completed, FNS will merge these 

requirements and their burden into 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026. When 

the two information collection requests 

are merged, the decrease in burden 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65787 

noted above will be fully captured in 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026. 

In connection to this final rule, USDA 

published a proposed rule, Child 

Nutrition Programs: Community 

Eligibility Provision-Increasing Options 

for Schools, on March 23, 2023, which 

provided notice to the public of the 

forthcoming changes to CEP. In 

addition, a notice for the proposed 

rule’s impact on information collection 

requirements and their associated 

burden was embedded in the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule solicited public 

comments on the proposed changes to 

the existing information collection 

requirements that are being finalized via 

this final rule. In response to the notice, 

FNS did not receive any comments 

specific to the estimated number of 

respondents or burden hours associated 

with the collection of information 

requirements addressed in the PRA 

section of the proposed rule, yet a few 

general comments submitted indicated 

that State agencies may have to update 

or reprogram systems to accommodate 

the proposed minimum ISP. 

FNS recognizes that State agencies 

have systems in place that may maintain 

CEP data, such as ISP data for LEAs 

under their jurisdiction. Systems may be 

used to assist program administrators to 

efficiently meet the collection of 

information requirements that are 

impacted by this rulemaking. For 

example, systems may be used to help 

State agencies meet the reporting 

requirement to inform LEAs of their CEP 

eligibility status, as well as meet the 

recordkeeping requirement that requires 

State agencies to review ISP 

documentation that is submitted by 

LEAs (7 CFR 245.9(f)(6) and (f)(4)(ii), 

respectively). When estimating the 

burden associated with information 

collection requirements, FNS takes into 

consideration the various methods that 

may be used to meet such requirements, 

including the use of information 

technology. FNS did not change the 

estimated burden associated with 

meeting CEP information collection 

requirements in response to the 

comments received about system 

updates or reprogramming; however, 

FNS expects and acknowledges some 

State agencies may experience a onetime cost associated with system 

modifications. The estimated cost 

associated with such modifications is 

included in the One Time Annual Cost 

subsection below. 

The estimated numbers of 

respondents, responses, and burden 

hours for the information collection 

requirements that were included in the 

March 23, 2023, proposed rule are being 

revised via this final rule. Revisions are 

not due to public comments received on 

the proposed rule; instead, they are 

based on more recent data that became 

available after publication of the 

proposed rule. Using more recent data, 

FNS re-evaluated the number of schools 

in States that have committed to offering 

healthy school meals for all children 

that would be eligible to elect CEP in 

accordance with the lowered identified 

student percentage threshold. FNS also 

analyzed a recent publication from the 

Food Research and Action Center that 

indicated States offering free meals to 

all students in SY 2022–2023 

experienced significant increases in CEP 

uptake and analyzed trends in CEP 

participation in recent years. As a result, 

FNS has obtained more accurate and 

recent data that better reflects the 

number of respondents that will comply 

with the collection of information 

requirements that are impacted by this 

final rule. Accordingly, FNS updated 

the estimated number of respondents, 

responses, and burden hours associated 

with the collections of information that 

are included in this final rule to reflect 

the most recent and accurate data 

available. 

In addition to updating the estimated 

number of respondents, responses, and 

burden hours for the information 

collection requirements addressed in 

this rulemaking with the use of more 

recent data, FNS is making a technical 

correction to a typographical error that 

was identified in the proposed rule’s 

PRA section. Specially, the table that 

represented the reporting requirements 

impacted by this rulemaking and their 

associated burden indicated an 

estimated 628,673 burden hours were 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026. The correct number 

of burden hours currently approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026 

for the reporting requirements impacted 

by this rulemaking is approximately 

643,824 burden hours. FNS has made 

the correction in the reporting table 

below by replacing 628,673 burden 

hours with 643,824 burden hours for the 

number of currently approved burden 

hours associated with the reporting 

requirements impacted by this 

rulemaking. 

FNS now estimates that this final rule 

will have an estimated 3,454,060 

respondents, 12,064,195 responses, and 

624,833 burden hours. This is a 

decrease of 31,128 respondents, 107,072 

responses, and 5,374 burden hours in 

comparison to the estimations included 

in the proposed rule. 

The burden estimates associated with 

the collections of information addressed 

in this final rule are contingent upon 

OMB approval under the PRA. When 

the information collection request 

associated with the final rule is 

approved, the USDA will publish a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB’s approval. 

Comments on the information 

collection requirements addressed in 

this final rule may be submitted. 

Comments must be received by October 

26, 2023. Send comments to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, 

Washington, DC 20403, Fax: 202–395– 

7285, or email to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Please also send a copy of 

your comments to School Meals Policy 

Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 

1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 

22314. For further information, please 

contact Wesley Gaddie at 

wesley.gaddie@usda.gov. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Title: Community Eligibility 

Provision: Increasing Options for 

Schools. 

Form Number: None. 

OMB Control Number: 0584–NEW. 

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Abstract: This is a new information 

collection that revises the existing 

information collection request approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026. 

Below is a summary of the changes in 

the final rule and the accompanying 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements that will impact the 

burden that program requirements have 

on state administering agencies, local 

education agencies (LEAs), and 

participating households. FNS has 

updated the number of respondents, 

responses, and burden hours associated 

with the collection of information 

requirements included in the final rule 

since publication of the proposed rule 

Child Nutrition Programs: Community 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Eligibility Provision-Increasing Options 

for Schools, published on March 23, 

2023. Revisions are based on more 

recent and accurate data that became 

available after the publication of the 

proposed rule. In addition, because FNS 

received comments on the proposed 

rule indicating that State agencies may 

experience a one-time cost associated 

with system modifications, an estimated 

cost for updating and reprogramming 

State systems is included in the One 

Time Annual Cost subsection below. 

Participating in the CEP is a voluntary 

decision made by local school districts. 

To be eligible for CEP under current 

program regulations, an LEA, group of 

schools, or school must ensure that at 

least 40 percent of enrolled students are 

identified students, participate in both 

the National School Lunch Program and 

the School Breakfast Program, and serve 

lunches and breakfasts to all enrolled 

students at no charge. 

Identified students are certified for 

free school meals without submitting a 

household application, such as those 

directly certified through the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). This final rule will 

expand access to CEP by lowering the 

required identified student percentage. 

This will provide more schools with an 

additional option for offering no-cost 

meals to students without requiring 

households to submit applications for 

free or reduced price meals. 

This final rule would amend 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(3)(i) to require a LEA, group of 

schools, or school to have an identified 

student percentage of at least 25 

percent, as of April 1 of the school year 

prior to participating in CEP. Individual 

schools participating in CEP as part of 

a group would be permitted to have an 

ISP lower than 25 percent, provided that 

the group’s aggregate ISP is at least 25 

percent. 

Reporting 

State Agencies 

The changes in this final rule impact 

the existing reporting requirement 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 and found at 7 CFR 

245.9(f)(6), that requires State agencies 

to notify LEAs of their CEP status. 

USDA expects that the number of LEAs 

that must be notified will increase by 

5,131, based on the finalized changes 

and more recent and accurate data that 

became available after publication of the 

proposed rule. 

USDA estimates the 54 State agency 

respondents will be required to notify 

approximately 95 additional LEAs each 

year, and that it takes approximately 

three minutes (.050 hours) to complete 

this reporting requirement for each 

record. The reporting requirement adds 

a total of 257 annual burden hours and 

5,131 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that an additional 257 hours 

and 5,131 responses will be added to 

the collection. 

LEAs 

The changes in this rule will impact 

the existing reporting requirements 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 for LEAs. 

USDA estimates that 471 additional 

LEAs will elect CEP and will be 

required to fulfill the reporting 

requirement at 7 CFR 245.9(f)(4)(i), that 

requires LEAs to submit to the State 

agency documentation of an acceptable 

identified student percentage of the 

LEA/school electing the provision. This 

collection of information requirement is 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026. This estimation is 

being updated from what was published 

in the proposed rule on March 23, 2023, 

to reflect more recent and accurate data 

that became available after publication 

of the proposed rule, along with the 

other estimations regarding the impact 

of PRA requirements in this section. 

For this final rule, USDA estimates 

that the 471 LEA respondents will be 

required to submit identified student 

percentage data when electing CEP each 

year and that it takes approximately 15 

minutes (.25 hours) to complete this 

reporting requirement for each record. 

The reporting requirement adds an 

estimated total of 118 annual burden 

hours and 471 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that an additional 118 hours 

and 471 responses will be added to the 

collection. 

USDA expects that as a result of the 

changes, more LEAs electing CEP will 

be electing CEP for all schools in the 

LEA, or district wide. This will result in 

a decrease in the number of LEAs 

required to process free and reduced 

price meal applications and conduct 

verification. 

USDA estimates 471 fewer LEAs than 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 will be required to 

fulfill the requirement at 7 CFR 

245.6(c)(6)(i), that requires LEAs to 

notify households of approval of meal 

benefit applications. USDA estimates 

that 14,869 LEA respondents will be 

required to notify 219 households of 

approval of meal benefit applications 

each year and that it takes 

approximately one minute (.02 hours) to 

complete this reporting requirement for 

each record. The reporting requirement 

adds a total of 65,126 annual burden 

hours and 3,256,311 responses into the 

new information collection request. 

Once this new collection is merged into 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026, 

USDA expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 2,288 hours 

and 114,364 responses. 

USDA estimates 471 fewer LEAs than 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 will be required to 

fulfill the requirement at 7 CFR 

245.6(c)(6)(ii), that requires LEAs to 

notify households in writing that 

children are eligible for free meals based 

on direct certification and that no 

application is required. USDA estimates 

that 14,869 LEA respondents will be 

required to notify 332 households in 

writing that children are eligible for free 

meals based on direct certification and 

that no application is required each year 

and that it takes approximately one 

minute (.02 hours) to complete this 

reporting requirement for each record. 

The reporting requirement adds a total 

of 98,730 annual burden hours and 

4,936,508 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 3,186 hours 

and 159,268 responses. 

USDA estimates 471 fewer LEAs than 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 will be required to 

fulfill the requirement at 7 CFR 

245.6(c)(7), that requires LEAs to 

provide written notice to each 

household of denied free or reduced 

price benefits. USDA estimates that 

14,869 LEA respondents will be 

required to provide written notice to 

approximately 12 households denied 

free or reduced price benefits each year 

and that it takes approximately one 

minute (.02 hours) to complete this 

reporting requirement for each record. 

The reporting requirement adds a total 

of 3,438 annual burden hours and 

171,886 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 110 hours and 

5,518 responses. 

USDA estimates 471 fewer LEAs than 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 will be required to 

fulfill the requirement at 7 CFR 

245.6a(f), that requires LEAs to notify 

households of selection for verification. 

USDA estimates that 14,869 LEA 

respondents will be required to notify 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65789 

approximately seven households of 

selection for verification and that it 

takes approximately 15 minutes (.25 

hours) to complete this reporting 

requirement for each record. The 

reporting requirement adds a total of 

24,162 annual burden hours and 96,649 

responses into the new information 

collection request. Once this new 

collection is merged into OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026, USDA expects that 

there will be an approximate decrease of 

930 hours and 3,720 responses. 

USDA estimates 471 fewer LEAs than 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026 will be required to 

fulfill the requirement at 7 CFR 

245.6a(j), that requires LEAs to provide 

households that failed to confirm 

eligibility with 10 days’ notice for 

receiving a reduction or termination of 

free or reduced price meal benefit. 

USDA estimates that 14,869 LEA 

respondents will be required to provide 

approximately three households that 

failed to confirm eligibility with 10 

days’ notice for receiving a reduction or 

termination of free or reduced price 

meal benefits and that it takes 

approximately six minutes (.1 hours) to 

complete this reporting requirement for 

each record. The reporting requirement 

adds a total of 3,940 annual burden 

hours and 39,403 responses into the 

new information collection request. 

Once this new collection is merged into 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026, 

USDA expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 131 hours and 

1,304 responses. 

USDA estimates that 5,131 more LEAs 

than currently approved under OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026 will fulfill 

the requirement at 7 CFR 245.9(f)(5), 

that requires LEAs to submit to the State 

agency for publication a list of eligible 

and potentially eligible schools and 

their eligibility status, unless otherwise 

exempted by the State agency. USDA 

estimates that 5,131 LEA respondents 

will be required to submit to the State 

agency for publication a list of eligible 

and potentially eligible schools and 

their eligibility status each year and that 

it takes approximately five minutes (.08 

hours) to complete this reporting 

requirement for each record. The 

reporting requirement adds a total of 

410 annual burden hours and 5,131 

responses into the new information 

collection request. Once this new 

collection is merged into OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026, USDA expects that 

410 hours and 5,131 responses will be 

added to the collection. 

USDA estimates that 471 more LEAs 

than currently approved under OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026 will fulfill 

the requirement at 7 CFR 245.9(g), that 

requires LEAs to amend free and 

reduced policy statements and certify 

that schools meet the eligibility criteria 

when electing CEP and that it takes 

approximately six minutes (.1 hours) to 

complete this reporting requirement for 

each record. The reporting requirement 

adds a total of 47 annual burden hours 

and 471 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that an additional 47 hours and 

471 responses will be added to the 

collection. 

Households 

Since households attending schools 

participating in CEP are not required to 

submit applications, USDA estimates 

that, with the changes, 108,941 fewer 

households than currently approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026 

will be required to fulfill the 

requirement at 245.6(a)(1), that requires 

households to complete an application 

form for free or reduced price meal 

benefits. USDA estimates that 3,439,137 

household respondents will be required 

to submit applications and that it takes 

approximately seven minutes (.110 

hours) to complete this reporting 

requirement for each record. The 

reporting requirement adds a total of 

378,305 annual burden hours and 

3,439,137 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 11,984 hours 

and 108,941 responses. 

Households attending schools 

participating in CEP are also not 

required to assemble written evidence 

for verification of eligibility for free and 

reduced price meals and send to LEA. 

USDA estimates that 3,082 fewer 

households than currently approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026 

will be required to fulfill the 

requirement at § 245.6a (a)(7)(i), that 

requires households to assemble written 

evidence for verification of eligibility for 

free and reduced price meals and send 

to the LEA. USDA estimates that 97,287 

household respondents will be required 

to assemble written evidence for 

verification of eligibility for free and 

reduced price meals and that it takes 

approximately 30 minutes (.5 hours) to 

complete this reporting requirement for 

each record. The reporting requirement 

adds a total of 48,644 annual burden 

hours and 97,287 responses into the 

new information collection request. 

Once this new collection is merged into 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026, 

USDA expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 1,542 hours 

and 3,082 responses. 

Recordkeeping 

State Agencies 

The changes in this final rule will 

impact the existing recordkeeping 

requirement currently approved under 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026 and 

found at 7 CFR 245.9(f)(4)(ii), that 

require State agencies to review and 

confirm LEAs’ eligibility to participate 

in CEP. USDA expects that State 

agencies will need to review an 

additional 471 LEAs with schools newly 

electing CEP, based on the changes in 

this rule and after analyzing more recent 

and accurate CEP participation data that 

became available after USDA published 

the proposed rule. USDA estimates that 

54 State Agency respondents will be 

required to review and confirm LEAs’ 

eligibility to participate in Provision 1, 

2, or 3 or the Community Eligibility 

Provision for approximately 471 LEAs 

electing CEP each year and that it takes 

approximately five minutes (.08 hours) 

to complete this recordkeeping 

requirement for each record. The 

recordkeeping requirement adds a total 

of 38 annual burden hours and 471 

responses into the new information 

collection request. Once this new 

collection is merged into OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026, USDA expects that 

an additional 38 hours and 471 

responses will be added to the 

collection. 

LEAs 

The changes in this final rule will 

impact the existing reporting 

requirements currently approved under 

OMB Control Number 0584–0026 for 

LEAs. USDA expects that as a result of 

the changes, more LEAs electing CEP 

will be electing CEP for all schools in 

the LEA, or district wide. This will 

result in a decrease in the number of 

LEAs required to maintain 

documentation substantiating eligibility 

determinations. USDA estimates 471 

fewer LEAs than currently approved 

under OMB Control Number 0584–0026 

will be required to fulfill the 

requirement at 7 CFR 245.6(e) to 

maintain documentation substantiating 

eligibility determinations for three years 

after the end of the fiscal year. USDA 

estimates that 14,869 LEA respondents 

will be required to maintain 

documentation related to substantiating 

eligibility determinations for three years 

after the end of the fiscal year and that 

it takes approximately 5 minutes (.08 

hours) to complete this recordkeeping 

requirement for each record. The 

recordkeeping requirement adds a total 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
65790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

of 1,190 annual burden hours and 

14,869 responses into the new 

information collection request. Once 

this new collection is merged into OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026, USDA 

expects that there will be an 

approximate decrease of 37 hours and 

471 responses. 

USDA expects that as a result of the 

changes, 471 more LEAs than currently 

approved under OMB Control Number 

0584–0026 will elect CEP and be 

required to fulfill the recordkeeping 

requirement at 7 CFR 245.9(h)(3) that 

LEAs maintain documentation related to 

the methodology used to calculate the 

identified student percentage and 

determine eligibility for the CEP. USDA 

estimates that 471 LEA respondents will 

be required to maintain documentation 

related to methodology used to calculate 

the identified student percentage and 

determine eligibility and that it takes 

approximately 55 minutes (.910 hours) 

to complete this recordkeeping 

requirement for each record. The 

recordkeeping requirement adds a total 

of 429 annual burden hours and 471 

responses into the new information 

collection request. Once this new 

collection is merged into OMB Control 

Number 0584–0026, USDA expects that 

an additional 429 hours and 471 

responses will be added to the 

collection. 

USDA does not expect lowering the 

threshold to participate in CEP to an ISP 

of 25 percent to impact the approved 

public notification requirements at 7 

CFR 245.9(f)(7). While this rule will 

increase the number of schools eligible 

for the CEP, the burden for states to 

notify LEAs of their community 

eligibility status due to the increased 

number of eligible schools is already 

captured above in the reporting 

requirements at 7 CFR 245.9(f)(6). 

Making these lists publicly available 

will not take any additional time than 

is currently approved under OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026. 

Accordingly, this requirement is not 

addressed in this information collection. 

One Time Annual Cost 

In recognition that State agencies may 

have to update or reprogram systems to 

accommodate the proposed minimum 

ISP, FNS is adding an estimated onetime, system modification cost, which 

will be included in the information 

collection request associated with this 

final rule. FNS received 2 comments 

that State agencies may modify existing 

systems in response to this rulemaking. 

In addition, FNS met with another State 

agency on August 16, 2023, and 

discussed how lowering the minimum 

ISP would impact that State’s system. 

FNS received feedback indicating 

updates to State systems could be done 

efficiently and in time to allow LEAs the 

opportunity to implement CEP at the 

lower ISP threshold soon after the final 

rule was effective, and encouraged FNS 

to allow mid-year election. 

Given the wide variation of systems in 

place, programming and maintenance 

costs across State agencies varies. After 

considering feedback and analyzing 

different systems States have in place, 

FNS is including an estimated one-time 

cost of $2,000 per State agency to make 

system modifications in response to the 

lowered ISP. As a result of the proposals 

outlined in this final rule, FNS 

estimates that this collection is expected 

to have $108,000 in costs related to 

system modifications, which will be 

added as a one-time, annual cost to the 

information collection requirements 

associated with the final rule, OMB 

Control Number 0584–00XX. 

Summary 

As a result of the proposals outlined 

in this final rule, FNS estimates that this 

new information collection will have 

3,454,060 respondents, 12,064,195 

responses, and 624,833 burden hours. 

The average burden per response and 

the annual burden hours are explained 

below and summarized in the charts 

which follow. Once the information 

collection requirement (ICR) for the 

final rule is approved and the 

requirements and associated burden for 

this new information collection are 

merged into the existing collection, FNS 

estimates that the burden for OMB 

Control Number 0584–0026 will 

decrease by 384,522 responses and 

18,908 burden hours. The collection 

will also have a one-time increase of 

$108,000 in annual costs related to 

system modifications. 

Reporting 

Respondents (Affected Public): 

Individual/Households; and State, Local 

and Tribal Government. The respondent 

groups identified include households, 

State Agencies and LEAs. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

3,454,060. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 3.49. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

12,048,384. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.052 

(approximately 3 minutes). 

Estimate Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 623,177 hours. 

Recordkeeping 

Respondents (Affected Public): State, 

Local and Tribal Government. The 

respondent groups identified include 

State Agencies and LEAs. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

14,923. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1.06. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

15,811. 

Estimated Time per Response: .105 

(approximately 6 minutes). 

Estimate Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 1,656 hours. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65791 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER26SE23.001</GPH>
65792 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER26SE23.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 65793 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER26SE23.003</GPH>
65794 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Department is committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act, 

to promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 245 

Civil rights, Food assistance 

programs, Grant programs—education, 

Grant programs—health, Infants and 

children, Milk, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, School 

breakfast and lunch programs. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 245 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 245—DETERMINING 

ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND 

REDUCED PRICE MEALS AND FREE 

MILK IN SCHOOLS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 245 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1752, 1758, 1759a, 

1772, 1773, and 1779. 

§ 245.9 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 245.9, in paragraph (f), remove 

‘‘40 percent’’ and ‘‘30 percent’’ 

wherever they appear and add in their 

places ‘‘25 percent’’ and ‘‘15 percent’’, 

respectively. 

Cynthia Long, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20294 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1479; Airspace 

Docket No. 23–ASO–26] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment of Class D and Class E 

Airspace; Palm Coast, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D 

and Class E airspace extending upward 

from 700 feet above the surface for 

Flagler Executive Airport, Palm Coast, 

FL. This action will increase the radius, 

update the airport’s geographic 

coordinates, and amend verbiage in the 

Class D description. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 

30, 2023. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all 

comments received, this final rule, and 

all background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

FAA Docket number. Electronic 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available on the website. It is available 

24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11H Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. You may also contact the 

Rules and Regulations Group, Office of 

Policy, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Fornito, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, GA 30337; telephone: 

(404) 305–6364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER26SE23.004</GPH>