2494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Parts 210 and 220 

[FNS–2007–0038] 

RIN 0584–AD59 

Nutrition Standards in the National 

School Lunch and School Breakfast 

Programs 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to revise 

the meal patterns and nutrition 

requirements for the National School 

Lunch Program and the School 

Breakfast Program to align them with 

the 2005 ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans,’’ as required by the Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act. 

The proposed changes are based on 

recommendations from the National 

Academies’ Institute of Medicine set 

forth in the report ‘‘School Meals: 

Building Blocks for Healthy Children.’’ 

This proposed rule would increase the 

availability of fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid 

milk in school meals; reduce the levels 

of sodium and saturated fat in meals; 

and help meet the nutrition needs of 

school children within their calorie 

requirements. Implementation of this 

proposed rule would result in more 

nutritious school meals that improve the 

dietary habits of school children and 

protect their health. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

written comments must be postmarked 

on or before April 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition 

Service, USDA, invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

proposed rule. Comments may be 

submitted through one of the following 

methods: 

• Preferred method: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Comments should be 

addressed to Julie Brewer, Chief, Policy 

and Program Development Branch, 

Child Nutrition Division, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Department of 

Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, 

Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302– 

1594. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

comments to the Food and Nutrition 

Service, Child Nutrition Division, 3101 

Park Center Drive, Room 640, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22302–1594, 

during normal business hours of 8:30 

a.m.–5 p.m. 

All comments submitted in response to 

this proposed rule will be included in 

the record and will be made available to 

the public. Since USDA is anticipating 

a large volume of comments, we request 

that commenters submit comments 

through only one of the methods listed 

above. Please be advised that the 

substance of the comments and the 

identity of the individuals or entities 

submitting the comments will be subject 

to public disclosure. FNS will make the 

comments publicly available on the 

Internet via http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wagoner or Marisol Benesch, 

Policy and Program Development 

Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food 

and Nutrition Service at (703) 305–2590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

The 2005 ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans’’ (referred to as the Dietary 

Guidelines from here on) recommend 

that a person’s diet supply all of the 

nutrients needed for growth and 

development, and emphasize the 

consumption of a variety of nutrientdense foods. To align the meals served 

under the National School Lunch 

Program (NSLP) and the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP) with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines, this proposed rule 

would require schools to offer more 

fruits, vegetables and whole grains; offer 

only fat-free or low-fat fluid milk; 

reduce the sodium content of school 

meals substantially over time; control 

saturated fat and calorie levels; and 

minimize trans fat. These proposed 

changes, based on the 2009 Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) report ‘‘School Meals: 

Building Blocks for Healthy Children,’’ 

are intended to result in school meals 

that are nutrient-rich and supply 

appropriate calorie levels. This 

proposed rule is expected to bring about 

several positive outcomes: 

• Update the NSLP and SBP meal 

requirements according to the latest 

nutrition science; 

• Increase the availability of key food 

groups (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, 

and fat-free and low-fat fluid milk and 

milk products) in school menus; 

• Allow the NSLP and SBP to better 

meet the nutritional needs of children, 

improve their eating habits, and 

safeguard their health; 

• Simplify the administration and 

operation of the NSLP and SBP; and 

• Reinforce the nutrition education 

messages provided by schools. 

This proposed rule also alerts the 

public about possible additional 

changes to the school meal requirements 

based on the upcoming 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines, and invites public 

comments on how to incorporate those 

possible changes into the NSLP and 

SBP. Three areas addressed by the 

advisory committee for the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines that may have significant 

impact on the meal requirements are 

sodium, saturated fat, and vegetable 

subgroups. The ‘‘Report of the Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee on the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010’’ 

(which precedes the release of the 

Dietary Guidelines’ policy) 

recommends: 

• Lower saturated fat consumption 

(<7% of total calories), 

• Lower sodium consumption (<1500 

mg per day), and 

• A new red/orange vegetable 

subgroup. 

Because the 2010 Dietary Guidelines 

policy was not available to IOM for 

consideration, USDA has decided to 

issue this proposed rule and seek public 

comments on ways to incorporate the 

above possible recommendations 

(without including them in the 

proposed regulatory text). Delaying the 

many critical updates necessary to align 

school meals with the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines would undermine 

nationwide efforts to improve the health 

of school children. Public comments on 

the areas identified above are requested 

as part of this proposed rulemaking. 

USDA will also publish a notice in the 

Federal Register when the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines official policy is issued to 

facilitate comment on how it may 

impact this proposal. 

II. Background 

The NSLP was established in 1946 

upon enactment of the National School 

Lunch Act (NSLA), now the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, to 

safeguard the health and well-being of 

the nation’s children. At that time, 

nutritional concerns in the United 

States (U.S.) centered on nutrient 

deficiencies and issues of under 

consumption. To facilitate the planning 

of well-balanced meals in schools across 

the nation, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) established meal 

patterns with minimum food 

component requirements based on 

nutrition science at that time. The Type 

A lunch, designed to provide one-third 

to one-half of the daily food 

requirements of a 10- to 12-year-old 

child, was the primary meal pattern for 

all children for the first three decades of 

the lunch program. This meal pattern 

allowed school foodservice managers to 

choose from a wide variety of foods, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2495 

1The RDAs, developed by the Food and Nutrition 

Board of the Institute of Medicine, reflect the 

average daily dietary nutrient intake levels 

sufficient for meeting the nutrient requirements of 

nearly all (97 to 98 percent) healthy individuals in 

particular age and sex groups. 

2The NSMP approach requires a School Food 

Authority to conduct a weighted analysis to assess 

the nutrient profile of the meals selected by 

students. Weighted analysis gives more weight to 

nutrients supplied by more frequently selected food 

items and correspondingly less weight to nutrients 

supplied by items less frequently selected. This 

requirement is currently waived until September 

30, 2010. 

served as a tool for teaching children 

about nutrition and good eating habits. 

Over time, the NSLP changed to 

ensure that children receive adequate 

nutrition for proper growth and 

development. The Type A lunch was 

updated to reflect new knowledge about 

the nutritional needs of children and 

their consumption habits. In 1975, the 

SBP was established as a permanent 

program. By 1980, USDA phased out the 

Type A lunch and specified different 

portion sizes for different age/grade 

groups of children. 

In the late 1980s, scientific evidence 

showed that diets high in fat, saturated 

fat, and cholesterol have adverse health 

consequences. USDA’s ‘‘School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment’’ (SNDA– 

I), published in 1993, indicated that the 

meals served under the NSLP and SBP 

were effective in delivering 

micronutrients but exceeded 

recommended intakes of total fat, 

saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium. 

(See the SNDA–I report at http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/ 

Published/CNP/cnp-archive.htm.) 

Consequently, Section 106(b) of the 

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans 

Act of 1994, Public Law 103–448, added 

section 9(f)(1) to the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 

1758(f)(1), to require that school meals 

not only provide a percentage of the 

Recommended Dietary Allowances 

(RDAs) 1 but are also consistent with the 

goals of the most recent Dietary 

Guidelines. In 2004, the NSLA was 

again amended by Section 103 of the 

Child Nutrition and WIC 

Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 

108–265, which added Section 9(a)(4), 

42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requiring the 

Secretary to promulgate rules revising 

nutrition standards, based on the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines, that reflect 

specific recommendations, expressed in 

serving recommendations, for increased 

consumption of foods and food 

ingredients offered in school nutrition. 

The Dietary Guidelines reflect the 

current science-based consensus on 

proper nutrition, a vital element in 

promoting health and preventing 

chronic disease, and provide the 

nutritional basis for Federal domestic 

nutrition assistance programs such as 

the NSLP and SBP. 

In response to section 9(f)(1) of the 

NSLA, USDA adopted the School Meals 

Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI), a 

comprehensive plan to promote the 

health of school children. On June 13, 

1995, USDA issued program regulations 

(60 FR 31188) that required school 

meals to reflect the 1990 Dietary 

Guidelines and established three menu 

planning options that schools may 

choose from, including two methods 

based on computerized nutrient analysis 

(Nutrient Standard Menu Planning and 

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu 

Planning) and a food-based menu 

planning system. On May 9, 2000, 

USDA issued program regulations (65 

FR 26904) that further expanded the 

existing menu planning approaches to 

the five current options. At present, the 

five menu planning approaches are: 

• The traditional and the enhanced 

food-based menu planning (FBMP) 

approaches, which follow specific meal 

patterns; 

• The nutrient standard menu 

planning and the assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning (NSMP) 2

approaches, which are based primarily 

on a computer analysis of the nutrient 

and energy contributions of planned 

meals; and 

• One alternate menu planning 

approach that is an individualized 

modification of either FBMP or NSMP. 

Currently, schools using any of the 

five menu planning approaches must 

offer lunches and breakfasts that 

provide one-third and one-fourth, 

respectively, of the 1989 RDAs. Program 

regulations require that school meals 

provide at least minimum calorie and 

nutrient levels for protein, calcium, 

iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C. These 

are key nutrients that promote growth 

and development and are readily 

identifiable on the nutrition labels of all 

food products. In addition, schools must 

decrease the levels of sodium and 

cholesterol, increase the amount of 

dietary fiber, and limit meals to not 

more than 30 percent of total calories 

from fat and less than 10 percent of total 

calories from saturated fat consistent 

with the 1995 Dietary Guidelines. 

Compliance with these nutrition 

standards is determined by averaging 

nutrients in meals offered over a school 

week. This allows menu planners 

flexibility to plan nutritious and 

appealing meals that vary from day to 

day, but that provide appropriate levels 

of nutrients and calories over a five-day 

school week. 

School lunches and breakfasts were 

not updated when the 2000 Dietary 

Guidelines were issued because those 

recommendations did not require 

significant changes to the school meal 

patterns. 

III. Need To Revise the Nutrition and 

Meal Requirements 

The current nutrition standards and 

meal requirements for the NSLP and 

SBP are inconsistent with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines. Further, as noted, 

section 9(a)(4) of the NSLA was 

amended in 2004 requiring that meals 

be consistent with the most recent 

Dietary Guidelines, so modifications are 

needed to align school meal patterns 

with the Dietary Guidelines. The 2005 

Dietary Guidelines call for significant 

changes in dietary habits for persons 

ages 2 years and older, and emphasize 

the importance of a nutritious diet to 

maintain health and reduce the risk of 

chronic diseases, such as overweight 

and obesity. New dietary concerns have 

emerged since the establishment of the 

NSLP. The overt nutritional deficiencies 

in children’s diets that led to the NSLP’s 

inception have largely been eliminated. 

In turn, overweight and obesity are now 

major health concerns affecting children 

and adolescents. Studies indicate that 

excess food consumption, poor food 

choices, and decreased physical activity 

are contributing to childhood 

overweight and obesity, and related 

chronic health conditions. According to 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s 2003–2006 National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES) data, almost 32 percent of 

children 6 to 19 years of age are 

overweight or obese. NHANES data 

indicate that 17 percent of children age 

6–11 are obese, while 17.6 percent of 

adolescents age 12–19 are obese. Obese 

children and adolescents are at risk for 

health problems during their youth and 

as adults. They are more likely to have 

risk factors associated with 

cardiovascular disease (such as high 

blood pressure, high cholesterol, and 

Type 2 diabetes) than other children 

and adolescents. 

A basic premise of the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines is that nutrient needs should 

be met primarily by consuming a variety 

of nutrient-dense foods from the basic 

food groups. In comparison with the 

2005 Dietary Guidelines, current school 

menus are not required to offer the 

recommended quantities of fruits, 

vegetables (including vegetable 

subgroups), and whole grains. These 

foods, along with low-fat fluid milk and 

milk products, supply many of the key 

nutrients of concern for children: 

Calcium, fiber, potassium, magnesium 

and vitamin E. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3The DRIs for vitamins and minerals consist of 

four reference standards that include the RDAs as 

well as Estimated Average Requirements (EAR), 

Adequate Intake levels (AI), and the Tolerable 

Upper Intake Level (UL). For energy and 

macronutrients, the DRIs are expressed as Estimated 

Energy Requirements (EERs) and Acceptable 

Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs), 

respectively. 

Current regulations also allow schools 

to offer whole and reduced-fat (2 

percent milk fat) fluid milk as part of a 

reimbursable school lunch or breakfast. 

Those types of milk may contribute to 

high saturated fat in school meals. The 

SNDA–III report issued by USDA in 

2007 indicates that less than one-third 

of school lunches offered in school year 

2004–2005 under the current menu 

planning approaches met the 

requirement of less than 10 percent of 

total calories from saturated fat. 

SNDA–III also shows that school 

lunches are high in sodium. This is 

consistent with IOM’s findings. With 

regard to fiber intake, the IOM report 

indicates that children’s consumption of 

whole grains is extremely low in 

comparison with the Dietary Guidelines 

recommendation that half of all grains 

consumed are whole grains, which are 

excellent sources of fiber. 

Another reason for updating the 

school meals is that new applications 

for dietary planning are available. RDAs, 

which are currently used as the basis for 

requirements in the School Meal 

Programs, are no longer a primary value 

for planning the diets of groups and 

individuals. Beginning in 2000, IOM 

issued the Dietary Reference Intake 

(DRI) reports providing new guidance 

for planning dietary intakes for 

individuals and groups. The DRI reports 

for vitamins, minerals, energy, and 

macronutrients provide recommended 

intake levels aimed at improving longterm health by preventing typical 

nutritional deficiencies and reducing 

the risk of chronic disease through 

nutrition. The DRIs represent a more 

comprehensive recommendation for 

appropriate nutrient levels than the 

former RDAs and are the recommended 

tool for dietary planning.3

In light of the changes in nutrition 

science and current dietary concerns, 

USDA is seeking significant 

improvements in the NSLP and SBP to 

ensure that these programs continue to 

meet their goal to safeguard the health 

of school children. The changes 

proposed in this rule are necessary to 

align school lunches and breakfasts with 

the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and be 

consistent with the DRIs. 

Implementation of the proposed 

changes would amend program 

regulations in 7 CFR 210 for the NSLP 

and 7 CFR 220 for the SBP as stated in 

the regulatory text. 

The 2009 IOM report that serves as 

the basis for the nutritional provisions 

of this proposed rule provides 

recommendations for the meals planned 

for school-aged children only (grades K 

and above). This rule addresses the 

proposed meal requirements for schoolaged children in § 210.10 and § 220.8 of 

the regulatory text. However, this 

proposed rule would retain the current 

meal requirements for children in 

preschool (ages 1–2 and 3–4) and 

infants pending changes to the Child 

and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). 

Consistent with the IOM’s selection of a 

food-based meal pattern for 

Kindergarten and above, this rule would 

allow only the traditional FBMP 

approach to plan meals for preschoolers. 

This rule allows a school serving meals 

to school-aged children and 

preschoolers to use a single menu 

planning approach to plan meals for all 

children. The meal requirements for 

preschoolers are addressed separately in 

§ 210.10(p) and § 220.8(n) of the 

proposed regulatory text. 

IV. IOM Recommendations for 

Implementing the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines 

This proposed rule seeks to update 

the school meals for school-aged 

children to align them with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines and make them 

consistent with the DRIs, as described in 

the IOM final report ‘‘School Meals: 

Building Blocks for Healthy Children,’’ 

which was published October 20, 2009 

(see the report at http://www.nap.edu). 

As recommended by IOM, this proposed 

rule focuses on revising the meal 

requirements for the NSLP and SBP. 

The new meal requirements seek to 

ensure that the meals planned by school 

foodservice providers and selected by 

students reflect the food groups 

emphasized by the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines and meet the nutrient targets 

identified by IOM. 

The IOM final report on school meals 

was issued in response to USDA’s 

request for recommendations to align 

lunches and breakfasts with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines. Prior to the IOM 

study, USDA had explored a range of 

alternatives to implement the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines in the School Meal 

Programs in a scientifically sound and 

practical manner. Due to the complexity 

of this task, USDA decided to seek help 

from IOM. USDA had previously sought 

IOM’s expertise to update the food 

package for the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children and that expertise proved 

extremely valuable. 

To conduct a review of the School 

Meals Programs, IOM assembled a 

committee of scientists in various 

disciplines and school foodservice 

professionals. The committee conducted 

an independent review and assessment 

of the nutritional needs of school-aged 

children in the U.S. using the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines and the DRIs. The 

committee used that scientific review as 

the basis for recommending revisions to 

the NSLP and SBP meal requirements. 

In the course of the study, IOM 

analyzed scientific evidence, 

deliberated in closed sessions, and held 

open meetings (July 8, 2009 and January 

28, 2009) to obtain stakeholders’ input. 

Representatives from many entities 

provided oral testimony, including 

nutrition advocates, health 

professionals, and many others listed in 

the final IOM report. In addition to the 

oral testimony, the committee received 

written comments from numerous 

stakeholders. 

IOM issued two reports during the 

study. ‘‘Nutrition Standards and Meal 

Requirements for National School 

Lunch and Breakfast Programs: Phase I, 

Proposed Approach for Recommending 

Revisions’’ was issued December 17, 

2008. The Phase I report describes the 

approach used by the IOM committee to 

make recommendations for revising the 

School Meal Programs. The final report 

‘‘School Meals: Building Blocks for 

Healthy Children,’’ dated October 20, 

2009, provides the scientific basis for 

this proposed rule. It contains 

recommendations for meal 

requirements, nutrient targets, and 

implementation and monitoring. In 

addition, the report explains the 

rationale for each of the committee’s 

recommendations and includes several 

appendices that provide technical 

justification. Appendix D of the final 

report provides a summary of the public 

comments received in response to the 

Phase I report. 

V. Proposed Meal Requirements for 

NSLP and SBP 

The IOM final report recommends 

that emphasis be placed on revising the 

NSLP and SBP meal requirements to 

align school lunches and breakfasts with 

the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. The IOM 

report addresses standards for menu 

planning and standards for meals as 

selected by the student. 

Standards for Menu Planning 

The proposed standards for menu 

planning improve the school meals’ 

alignment with the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines by offering more fruits at 

breakfast; increasing the amount and 

variety of vegetables at lunch; offering 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2497 

more whole-grain rich foods; limiting 

fluid milk choices to fat-free (unflavored 

or flavored) and unflavored fluid low-fat 

milk; establishing minimum and 

maximum calorie levels for each age/ 

grade group; increasing the emphasis on 

limiting saturated fat; seeking gradual 

but major reductions in the sodium 

content; and minimizing trans fat. The 

intent of these proposed changes is to 

offer school meals that are nutrient-rich 

and calorie-appropriate. 

In developing its recommendations, 

IOM set targets for 24 nutrients and 

other dietary components that serve as 

a scientific basis for the proposed 

standards for menu planning. To align 

the school meals with the Dietary 

Guidelines, the IOM committee found it 

necessary to consider a large number of 

nutrients and replace the concept of 

nutrition standards with a new concept 

of ‘‘nutrient targets.’’ IOM established 

nutrient targets for the school meals 

based on the DRIs. 

Compared to the current nutrition 

standards, the nutrient targets identified 

by IOM are higher for protein, and 

selected vitamins and minerals. The 

recommended nutrient targets were set 

at 32 percent of the School Meal-Target 

Median Intake for lunches and at 21.5 

percent of the School Meal-Target 

Median Intake for breakfasts. (These 

percentages correspond to the means of 

the values used by IOM for the 

minimum and maximum calorie levels.) 

The Target Median Intake method 

combines information about a 

population group’s nutrient 

requirements (Estimated Average 

Requirements or Adequate Intakes) and 

Tolerable Upper Intake Levels. The 

selected Target Median Intake 

distribution aims to minimize predicted 

prevalence of nutrient inadequacy and 

excessive intakes. (See chapter 4 of the 

IOM final report for additional 

information on the development of the 

nutrient targets.) 

Schools would not use these 24 

nutrient targets for planning or 

monitoring menus. Instead, they would 

follow the food-based meal patterns 

developed by IOM, as set forth in the 

following table. Meals that meet the 

proposed meal patterns and other meal 

requirements are expected to supply 

most of the nutrient targets set by IOM. 

The proposed meal patterns designed 

by IOM and set forth in this proposed 

rule offer more fruits, vegetables, and 

whole grains consistent with the 

recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines. As the following table 

indicates, the proposed meal pattern for 

breakfast would consist of fruits, grains, 

meats/meat alternates, and fluid milk. 

The proposed meal pattern for lunch 

would consist of fruits, vegetables, 

grains, meats/meat alternates, and fluid 

milk. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

The greatest change in breakfast foods 

is the increase in fruits, which doubles 

from the current requirement. In 

addition, grains increase by nearly 80 

percent over current levels, with a shift 

to whole grains. For lunch, the greatest 

change is the increase in fruits and 

vegetables, an increase of nearly four 

half-cup servings a week. The following 

tables compare the types and amounts 

of foods required under the current and 

the proposed meal patterns for breakfast 

and lunch. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2499 

CHANGES IN MINIMUM AMOUNTS AND TYPES OF FOOD: BREAKFAST

Current requirement Proposed requirement 

Fruit ................................................. 1⁄2 cup per day ........................................................... 1 cup per day. 

Grains and Meat/Meat Alternate ..... 2 grains or 2 meat/meat alternates or 1 of each per 

day.

1.4–2 grains per day plus: 

1–2 meat/meat alternates per day. 

(Range reflects difference by grade group.) 

Whole Grains .................................. Encouraged ............................................................... At least half of the grains to be whole grain-rich. 

Milk .................................................. 1 cup .......................................................................... 1 cup, fat content of milk to be 1% or less. 

CHANGES IN MINIMUM AMOUNTS AND TYPES OF FOOD: LUNCH

Current requirement Proposed requirement 

Fruit and Vegetables ....................... 1⁄2–1 cup of fruit and vegetables combined per day 3⁄4–1 cup of vegetables plus 1⁄2–1 cup of fruit per 

day. 

Vegetables ...................................... No specifications as to type of vegetable ................. Weekly requirement for dark green and orange 

vegetables and legumes and limits on starchy 

vegetables. 

Meat/Meat Alternate ........................ 1.5–3 oz equivalents (daily average over 5-day 

week).

1.6–2.4 oz equivalents (daily average over 5-day 

week). 

Grains .............................................. 1.8–3 oz equivalents (daily average over 5-day 

week).

1.8–2.6 oz equivalents (daily average over 5-day 

week). 

Whole Grains .................................. Encouraged ............................................................... At least half of the grains to be whole grain-rich. 

Milk .................................................. 1 cup .......................................................................... 1 cup, fat content of milk to be 1% or less. 

USDA recognizes that these proposed 

changes are significant and may pose a 

particular challenge to implement. We 

solicit comments on how these changes 

may affect take-up and participation 

rates. 

Menu Planning Approach and Age/ 

Grade Groups 

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines stress 

the importance of increasing the 

consumption of key food groups: Fruits, 

vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free/ 

low-fat fluid milk or milk products. 

Consistent with the Dietary Guidelines’ 

emphasis on food groups, IOM 

developed a food-based meal pattern for 

each of the School Meal Programs. This 

proposed rule would require that all 

schools follow a food-based menu 

planning approach to plan school 

lunches and breakfasts for all children. 

No alternate menu planning approaches 

would be allowed. 

Currently, approximately 70 percent 

of schools use the FBMP approach. 

Using a single FBMP approach would 

simplify program management, training, 

and monitoring by State agencies (SAs). 

It would also give schools a practical 

and easy tool to plan well-balanced and 

nutritious meals. More importantly, this 

change would ensure that all school 

children participating in the NSLP and 

SBP nationwide have access to more 

healthy foods in key food groups that 

contribute to a nutritious diet and 

protect health. 

Another change proposed in this rule 

involves the age/grade groups used for 

menu planning. Today, childhood 

overweight and obesity are major public 

health concerns. To avoid excessive 

calories and provide age-appropriate 

meals, new age/grade groups 

recommended by IOM would be 

established. All schools would be 

required to use the following age/grade 

groups to plan lunches and breakfasts: 

• Grades K–5 (ages 5–10 years) 

• Grades 6–8 (ages 11–13 years) 

• Grades 9–12 (ages 14–18 years) 

These age/grade groups are consistent 

with the current age-gender categories 

used in the DRIs and with widely used 

school grade configurations. Use of 

these age/grade groups would enable 

schools operating under a food-based 

menu planning system to provide meals 

that meet the nutrition needs of school 

children in various grade groups and are 

conducive to healthy weight. 

IOM recognizes that some schools 

have different grade configurations and 

numerous logistical problems that may 

interfere with the reasonable use of the 

proposed age/grade groups. Those 

schools would be allowed to use the 

same breakfast and lunch meal patterns 

for students in grades K through 8 as 

food quantity requirements for the 

proposed age/grade group K–5 and 6–8 

are comparable. However, schools 

choosing to use one meal pattern for 

students in these two age/grade groups 

would continue to be responsible for 

meeting the calorie, saturated fat, and 

sodium standards for each of the 

proposed age/grade groups. This would 

mean meals would have to meet very 

precise targets for calories and sodium. 

For example, a school could offer all 

students in grade groups K–5 and 6–8 

the same breakfast choices for the fruit, 

meat/meat alternate, and milk 

components because the quantity 

requirements are the same. The 

requirements for the grains component 

are not the same but they overlap (for 

grades K–5 is 7–10 oz eq per week, and 

for grades 6–8 is 8–10 oz eq per week). 

A school could offer 8–10 oz eq per 

week to meet the requirements for both 

grade groups. Similarly, the calorie 

requirements for grades K–5 (350–500 

average calories per week) and grades 6– 

8 (400–550 average calories per week) 

overlap. Therefore, a school could offer 

both grade groups a range of 400–500 

average calories to meet the requirement 

for each grade group. While the 

saturated fat and trans fat requirement 

are the same for both grade groups, the 

school must carefully consider the 

sodium requirements. The school would 

have to comply with a standard of <430 

mg, which was developed for grades K– 

5, but would also meet the requirement 

for students in grades 6–8. 

USDA acknowledges that schools 

offering the SBP may face barriers when 

grouping students by age/grade group 

for breakfast service. Children typically 

participate in the breakfast service as 

they arrive at school, rather than by 

grade level. In addition, some schools 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4Whole grains are (1) grain foods whose grain 

ingredients are whole grains only (100 percent 

whole grains), or (2) whole grain ingredients, such 

as rye flour, and whole wheat flour. (Virginia A. 

Stallings, Carol West Suitor, and Christine L. 

Taylor, Editors; Committee on Nutrition Standards 

for National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs; 

Institute of Medicine. School Meals: Building 

Blocks for Healthy Children.) 

5Whole grain-rich foods may contain less than 

100 percent whole grains but, generally, contain at 

least 51 percent whole grains. IOM’s recommended 

criterion requires that whole grain-rich foods meet 

serving size requirements defined in the Grains/ 

Breads Instruction for Child Nutrition Programs, 

and can be easily identified as containing at least 

51 percent whole grains. Please see Box 7–1 in the 

IOM report for details on the recommended 

temporary criterion for whole grain-rich foods 

(available at: http://books.nap.edu/ 

openbook.php?record_id=12751&page=124). 

provide breakfasts by methods such as 

‘‘grab-and-go breakfasts’’ from kiosks. In 

instances where schools serve K–12 

students on the same line, the IOM 

committee suggests that the SFA work 

with the SA to find a solution that 

ensures that basic elements of the meal 

requirements are maintained: Inclusion 

of required food components and food 

subgroups, moderate calorie levels, and 

an emphasis on reducing saturated fat 

and sodium. USDA will provide 

technical assistance to the SAs to assist 

them with this issue. Schools in these 

situations have the option to serve 

breakfast in the classroom to each grade 

group, use one meal pattern for grades 

K to 8 that meets the standards for each 

age/grade group, or work with the SA to 

find a feasible solution that meets the 

meal requirements. 

Fruits and Vegetables 

The proposed food-based meal 

patterns for the NSLP and SBP were 

designed by IOM to improve the 

nutrient density of school meals and the 

nutrient intake by students, especially 

with regard to nutrients of concern. The 

proposed meal patterns offer fruits and 

vegetables as separate components and 

increase the quantities of these key food 

groups to promote children’s intake of 

fiber and other important nutrients such 

as potassium and magnesium. 

To facilitate school’s compliance with 

the fruits requirement, schools would be 

allowed to offer fruit that is fresh, frozen 

without sugar, dried, or canned in fruit 

juice, water, or light syrup. To confer 

fiber benefits, it is important to meet the 

fruits component with whole fruit 

whenever possible. However, schools 

would be able to offer pasteurized, fullstrength (100 percent) fruit juice, as 

currently defined, to meet up to one-half 

of the fruits requirement. Products that 

contain less than 100 percent juice 

would not be allowed. The volume of 

products that would be necessary to 

meet the fruits requirement may be 

relatively large for consumption by 

children and can displace the intake of 

nutrient-rich foods in the meal. 

Requiring 100 percent fruit juice in the 

NSLP would be consistent with the 

current requirements in the SBP and the 

Child and Adult Care Food Program. 

For breakfast, schools would have the 

option to offer non-starchy vegetables in 

place of fruits. For some schools, 

vegetables may be more affordable than 

whole fruit. For example, schools may 

add tomatoes and green peppers to a 

breakfast omelet or a breakfast burrito. 

In addition to establishing fruits and 

vegetables as separate food components 

in the NSLP, this proposed rule would 

require that schools offer specific 

vegetable subgroups at lunch over the 

school week to encourage variety in 

children’s diets. Schools would be 

required to offer weekly at lunch at least 

1⁄2 cup equivalent of each of the 

following vegetable subgroups: Dark 

green, orange, and legumes (dry beans). 

As recommended by IOM, starchy 

vegetables (e.g., white potatoes, corn, 

lima beans, and green peas) would be 

limited to 1 cup per week to encourage 

students to try new vegetables in place 

of the familiar starchy ones. In addition, 

schools would be allowed to offer other 

vegetables (as defined in Appendix A– 

2 of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) over 

the course of the week as specified in 

the proposed meal pattern. Schools 

using canned vegetables would have to 

select products with low sodium to stay 

within the proposed sodium limits. 

Whole Grains 

The Dietary Guidelines recommend 

that all age groups consume at least half 

their grains as whole grains.4 In light of 

concerns such as whole grain product 

availability, product labeling, and 

student acceptability, IOM recommends 

the following staged approach to align 

school meals with the Dietary 

Guidelines’ whole grains 

recommendation: 

• Upon implementation of the 

proposed rule, at least half of the grains 

servings offered in the NSLP and SBP 

should be whole grain-rich.5

• Within three years postimplementation, menu planning 

standards should be revised so that the 

proportion of whole grains to refined 

grains will exceed 50 percent. 

This proposed rule is consistent with 

IOM’s recommended temporary 

criterion for whole grain-rich foods, 

which encompasses the HealthierUS 

School Challenge criteria. However, this 

rule slightly modifies IOM’s suggested 

timeline to minimize the frequency of 

changes to menus and vendor 

requirements. This proposed rule would 

align the whole grains implementation 

timeline with the phased-in sodium 

reductions. Therefore, this proposed 

rule would implement the IOM whole 

grains recommendation as follows: 

• Upon implementation of the final 

rule, half of the grains offered during the 

school week must be whole grain-rich. 

• Two years post-implementation of 

the final rule, all grains offered during 

the school week must be whole grainrich. 

The IOM report also recommends that 

the FDA take action to require labeling 

for the whole grain content of food 

products. USDA will provide support to 

FDA to help implement the labeling 

recommendation. In the interim, the 

criteria used to identify whole grain-rich 

foods served in school meals would be 

established in FNS guidance, and could 

be revised in policy as more information 

becomes available on the food label by 

the voluntary addition of whole grain 

information by industry or by FDA 

action to require labeling for the whole 

grain content of food products. USDA 

will also work with industry and other 

stakeholders to ensure that program 

operators can identify and purchase 

whole grains. 

IOM expects that the availability of 

whole grain-rich products will increase 

over time nationwide. At the Federal 

level, USDA commodity foods (now 

known as USDA Foods) will continue to 

expand the list of whole grain products 

available to schools. USDA Foods now 

include brown rice, and whole grain 

tortillas, pancakes, and pasta. In 

addition, USDA will issue an updated 

Grains/Breads Instruction and develop 

practical guidance to help schools 

incorporate more whole grain-rich 

products into school menus. 

This proposed rule would continue to 

allow schools the option to meet part of 

the weekly grains requirement with a 

grain-based dessert. Up to one serving 

per day of a grains-based dessert would 

be allowed as part of the grains 

component. When offered in 

moderation, grain-based desserts may 

present an opportunity to add variety to 

the grains component, incorporate more 

whole grains into the menu, and 

encourage student participation. 

Schools would need to refer to the 

Grains/Breads Instruction to identify 

creditable grain-based desserts. 

To accommodate cultural food 

preferences and due to product 

availability concerns, current 

regulations allow schools in outlying 

areas (American Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands) to serve a 

vegetable such as yams, plantains, or 

sweet potatoes to meet the grains 

requirement. This proposed rule would 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2501 

continue to permit this meal pattern 

exception. 

Meats/Meat Alternates 

The Dietary Guidelines recommend 

selecting and preparing lean meat and 

poultry, or low-fat and fat-free meat 

alternates, and limiting the intake of 

saturated fats, trans fat, and cholesterol. 

The meal pattern designed by IOM 

includes meats and meat alternates 

(such as beans, cheese, whole eggs, nuts, 

seeds, peanut butter, other nut or seed 

butters, and yogurt) and the 

recommendation to control saturated fat 

and trans fat. To meet this food 

component as well as the dietary 

specifications for saturated fat and trans 

fat, schools would have to offer lean 

meats/meat alternates. The use of 

processed meats would be discouraged 

because those available at this time are 

usually high in sodium. If offered, 

processed meats would have to be low 

in fat. USDA guidance and technical 

assistance materials will emphasize 

strategies for purchasing, planning, and 

preparing lean meats/meat alternates. 

As currently done, the quantity of 

meats/meat alternates offered daily 

could vary if at least a minimum 

amount (1 ounce) is provided daily and 

the total offered over the school week 

meets the weekly component 

requirement. This proposed rule would 

also retain the current requirement that 

all creditable meats/meat alternates be 

offered in the main dish or as part of the 

main dish and up to one other food item 

other than a dessert. 

USDA is aware of a growing interest 

to expand the list of allowable meat 

alternates to include tofu, a whole 

soybean food. We recognize that 

soybean foods are increasingly being 

incorporated in the American diet as 

nutrient-dense meat alternatives. This 

rule is not proposing to credit 

commercially prepared tofu as an 

allowable meat alternate at this time. 

However, USDA is interested in 

receiving comments from the child 

nutrition community proposing a 

methodology that could be used for 

crediting commercially prepared tofu. 

A longstanding concern regarding tofu 

is the lack of an FDA standard of 

identity. An FDA standard of identity 

defines what a given food product is, its 

name, and the ingredients that must be 

used or may be used in the manufacture 

of the food product. Without a standard 

of identity, USDA cannot assure 

nutritional consistency across brands 

and types of tofu in a food-based menu 

planning approach. Although tofu does 

not have a standard of identity, the 

USDA National Nutrient Database for 

Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009) 

provides nutrient profiles for different 

types of tofu. 

Other soy-based products are 

currently allowed as alternate protein 

products (APP) if they meet the 

requirements in Appendix A to 7 CFR 

part 210, and Appendix A to 7 CFR part 

220. Examples of allowable APPs 

include products that are formulated 

with ingredients such as soy 

concentrates, soy isolates, soy flours, 

whey protein concentrate, or casein. 

Tofu is not an allowable APP because it 

does not meet the established minimum 

requirement to consist of at least 18 

percent protein by weight when fully 

hydrated or formulated. 

Fluid Milk 

As recommended by IOM, only fatfree fluid milk (unflavored or flavored) 

and unflavored low-fat fluid milk (1 

percent milk fat or less) would be 

allowed in the School Meal Programs in 

order to reduce the saturated fat and 

calorie content of school meals. 

Flavored low-fat fluid milk would not 

be allowed because it increases both 

saturated fat and calories. However, 

flavored fat-free fluid milk would be 

allowed because calcium is a nutrient of 

concern for children and the use of 

flavors to encourage children to drink 

more fluid milk could help mitigate this 

problem. USDA anticipates that the 

proposed calorie maximum would drive 

schools to select flavored fat-free fluid 

milk with the lowest sugar content. 

This proposed rule would no longer 

allow schools to offer whole milk or 

reduced-fat (2 percent milk fat) fluid 

milk as part of the reimbursable meal. 

This rule would also remove the 

existing regulatory requirement that 

schools offer milk in a variety of fat 

content. Section 203 of the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Act of 2010, which 

amended the NSLA, requires that 

schools offer a variety of milk consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations. 

Calories, Saturated Fat, Sodium, and 

Trans Fat 

Because the proposed meal pattern 

alone cannot ensure appropriate 

amounts of calories, saturated fat, 

sodium and trans fat, IOM 

recommended specific standards for 

these dietary components. This 

proposed rule would implement the 

IOM-recommended standards for 

calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans 

fat as follows: 

Calories 

When recommending the calorie 

levels that should be provided by school 

meals, the IOM committee was mindful 

of the childhood obesity trend and the 

food choices available to school 

children outside of the NSLP and SBP. 

The committee recommended minimum 

and maximum calories for lunches and 

breakfasts based on evidence about 

children’s intakes at meals and snacks. 

The proposed minimum and maximum 

calorie levels to be required for each age 

grade group on average over the course 

of the week are: 

LUNCH—PROPOSED MINIMUM AND

MAXIMUM CALORIE LEVELS

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

550–650 600–700 750–850 

aThe average daily amount for a 5-day 

school week is not to be less than the minimum or exceed the maximum. b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats 

and added sugars) may be added to the meal 

pattern if within the specifications for calories, 

saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. 

BREAKFAST—PROPOSED MINIMUM AND

MAXIMUM CALORIE LEVELS

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

350–500 400–550 450–600 

aThe average daily amount for a 5-day 

school week is not to be less than the minimum or exceed the maximum. b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats 

and added sugars) may be added to the meal 

pattern if within the specifications for calories, 

saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. 

The intent of this proposed change is 

not to reduce children’s intake of food, 

but to avoid excessive calories. The 

meal patterns proposed in this 

rulemaking would require increased 

amounts of fruits, vegetables, and whole 

grains. Combined with calorie 

maximums, USDA believes that these 

increased food requirements leave 

relatively few discretionary calories for 

fats and added sugars. Therefore, to stay 

within the calorie ranges specified in 

this proposed rule, schools would have 

to offer lean meats/meat alternates, fatfree or low-fat fluid milk, and other 

nutrient-dense foods, as recommended 

by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. 

While the 2005 Dietary Guidelines do 

not recommend discrete limits on added 

sugars, they do encourage the 

consumption of foods and beverages 

low in added sugars. 

Saturated Fat 

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines continue 

to recommend that all individuals 

consume less than 10 percent of total 

calories from saturated fat. This is the 

current standard in both the NSLP and 

SBP and this proposed rule would 

retain it as recommended by IOM. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2502 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Schools have made a recognizable effort 

to reduce the saturated fat levels of 

meals. SNDA–III data indicate that, on 

average, three-quarters of schools 

offered breakfasts that met the 

requirement to provide less than 10 

percent of total calories from saturated 

fat. At lunch, however, only one-third of 

schools offered meals that met this 

required level. 

A variety of food sources contribute to 

saturated fat levels in school meals; 

however, fluid milk is a primary 

contributor. As stated earlier, this 

proposed rule would no longer allow 

schools to offer whole fluid milk or 

reduced-fat fluid milk as part of a 

reimbursable lunch or breakfast for 

children ages five and older. To meet 

the new statutory requirement that 

schools offer a variety of milk consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines (established 

by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Act of 

2010), schools would have to offer 

students at least two fluid milk options. 

For example, schools could offer fat-free 

milk (both unflavored and flavored), or 

fat-free milk (unflavored and/or 

flavored) along with low-fat milk 

(unflavored). By limiting the choices to 

fat-free and low-fat milk, schools would 

limit saturated fat in the school meals 

while maintaining key nutrients for 

growth and development found in fluid 

milk. 

Sodium 

Reducing the sodium content of 

school meals is one of the key objectives 

of this proposed rule. Research suggests 

that modest population-wide reductions 

in dietary salt could substantially 

reduce cardiovascular events and 

medical costs (see, for example, SmithSpangler, 2010; Bibbins-Domingo, 

2010). More specifically, a forthcoming 

study suggests that reducing dietary salt 

in adolescents could yield substantial 

health benefits by decreasing the 

number of teenagers with hypertension 

and the rates of cardiovascular disease 

and death as these teenagers reach 

young and middle age adulthood 

(Bibbins-Domingo, 2010b). 

USDA has encouraged schools to 

reduce sodium since the 

implementation of SMI in 1995. 

According to the SNDA–III study, the 

average sodium content of school 

lunches (for all schools) is more than 

1400 mg. IOM recommended a gradual 

but significant reduction in sodium over 

time and suggested that USDA establish 

intermediate targets to help schools 

progress to the final sodium standards 

developed by the IOM expert committee 

for each age/grade group. This proposed 

rule would require that schools meet the 

final sodium standards established by 

IOM no later than ten years after the 

final rule is implemented by reaching 

intermediate sodium targets as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2503 

USDA recognizes that there are 

barriers to reducing the sodium content 

of meals to the levels recommended by 

IOM without having an impact on 

student acceptance and participation, 

practicality, and cost. The proposed 

intermediate sodium targets were 

developed after carefully reviewing 

scientific literature, consulting with 

U.S. and international public health 

professionals involved in sodium 

reduction efforts, and applying 

information from expert presentations 

by industry representatives at the IOM 

Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake 

information gathering session in March 

2009. Findings showed that school 

menu planners can reduce sodium by 

approximately 10 percent through menu 

modification. Industry can reduce 

sodium in school food products by 

approximately 20 to 30 percent using 

current technology. The remaining 

reduction requires innovation. 

Establishing intermediate targets was 

complicated because two intermediate 

targets set at 10 percent and 20 percent 

reductions from baseline levels yield 

reductions for school breakfasts beyond 

IOM recommendations (school 

breakfasts require a sodium reduction of 

approximately 25 percent). If applied to 

school breakfasts, this strategy also 

places a disproportionate responsibility 

for reduction on school menu planners. 

Industry reductions and innovation 

necessary to meet school lunch targets 

will affect all foods served in all school 

meals, and the intermediate targets must 

account for this and distribute 

reductions required more evenly across 

the 10-year period. Therefore, simply 

applying 10 percent and 20 percent 

reductions to baseline levels was not an 

ideal way to establish intermediate 

targets. 

Instead, USDA applied the same 

proportional reductions (20 percent and 

40 percent, respectively, for the first and 

second intermediate targets) to the total 

amount of sodium reduction required 

for each age/grade group. This method 

distributes reductions more evenly 

across the 10-year period and yields 

reasonable intermediate targets that 

align with feasible reductions for menu 

planners (approximately 10 percent) 

and industry (approximately 20–30 

percent), and sodium reduction efforts 

currently underway. 

Taking baseline measures from SNDA 

III, intermediate targets were established 

two years and four years postimplementation to initiate change using 

current resources: 

(1) Two years post implementation of 

the final rule, schools would need to 

reduce sodium in school lunches by 

approximately 5–10 percent from 

baseline levels (SNDA–III). This is the 

estimated amount that schools can 

reduce sodium through menu and 

recipe modification using currently 

available foods and technology. 

(2) Four years post implementation of 

the final rule, schools would need to 

reduce sodium by approximately 15–30 

percent from the baseline. This is the 

estimated amount industry can reduce 

sodium in foods using currently 

available technology. 

(3) Ten years post implementation of 

the final rule, school lunches would 

need to meet the final targets 

recommended by IOM. This would 

require schools to reduce sodium in 

school meals by approximately 25–50 

percent from the baseline. A significant 

amount of time is allotted for this final 

reduction, which will likely require 

innovation, such as new technology 

and/or food products. 

These reductions are consistent with 

public health initiatives aiming to 

reduce sodium in the nation’s food 

supply over the next 10 years, or a 

reduction of approximately 5 percent 

per year. Such reductions are widely 

supported by the American Public 

Health Association and by efforts such 

as New York City’s National Sodium 

Reduction Initiative. 

Nearly all schools would need to 

reduce the sodium content of school 

meals to meet the proposed 

intermediate and final sodium targets. 

The changes necessary will vary by 

school/district because currently there 

is no sodium limit for school meals and 

each school/district will be starting from 

a different baseline. Schools can use 

SMI data or review their meals to 

determine changes needed to meet the 

sodium targets. 

It is important to note that 

approximately 75 percent of the sodium 

in foods consumed in the U.S. comes 

from salt (sodium chloride) added to 

processed foods. Processed foods and 

convenience items are often used in the 

school food service operation to save 

time and labor. Gradual implementation 

of the sodium restriction is intended to 

give schools and industry time to lower 

the sodium content of the foods used in 

the school meals. 

The availability of high sodium foods 

in and outside of the School Meal 

Programs has resulted in a preference 

for salty foods at a young age. The 

proposed intermediate standards should 

help children reduce their salt 

preference and develop healthier eating 

habits. However, a simultaneous 

reduction of sodium levels in foods 

available outside the NSLP would be 

important to foster a change in students’ 

taste preference. 

USDA plans to develop practical 

guidance and technical assistance 

resources to help schools achieve the 

proposed sodium standards while 

avoiding a negative impact on student 

participation. USDA resources would 

also emphasize strategies for increasing 

potassium in schools meals. Adequate 

potassium intake can help offset some of 

the adverse health effects of high 

sodium levels. 

USDA will continue to make lowsodium USDA Foods available to 

schools. USDA has targeted specific 

commodities to be made available at 

lower sodium levels, including canned 

items (beef, pork, poultry, salmon, and 

tuna), chicken fajita strips, and ready-toeat cereal. Most commodity canned 

vegetables already meet FDA’s 

requirements for use of the term 

‘‘healthy,’’ which means that, in addition 

to meeting other requirements, these 

foods contain no more than 480 mg 

sodium per labeled serving. USDA plans 

to gradually phase-in low sodium 

canned vegetables for donation to all of 

the domestic nutrition assistance 

programs. USDA Foods now offer low 

sodium canned tomato products and 

canned dry beans. In school year 2010, 

the sodium levels in all USDA canned 

vegetables are being reduced to 140 mg 

per serving. 

While the proposed regulatory 

requirements discussed above are in 

line with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines 

and the IOM final sodium targets, USDA 

acknowledges further reductions in 

recommended sodium levels are 

possible in the upcoming 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines. The 2010 ‘‘Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee Report’’ 

recommends that both children and 

adults should reduce their sodium 

intake to 1,500 mg per day (compared to 

the 2,300 mg per day recommended in 

the 2005 Guidelines). 

USDA is seeking public comment on 

how to address further reductions in 

recommended sodium levels, in the 

event that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines 

include sodium targets lower than those 

reflected in this proposed rule. USDA 

invites public comments on how 

possible further reductions could be 

incorporated into the NSLP and SBP, 

including the timeline for achieving 

reductions; how intermediate targets, if 

any, should be established; and the 

impact that further reductions may have 

on participation levels, implementation 

feasibility, and costs. 

Tracking Calories, Saturated Fat, and 

Sodium 

Under this proposal, all schools 

would plan lunches and breakfasts 

using the food-based meal patterns 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2504 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

developed by IOM. Similar to the 

current FBMP system, schools would be 

responsible for offering meals that meet 

the meal pattern, as well as specific 

standards for calories, saturated fat, and 

sodium for each age/grade group on 

average over the school week. However, 

this rule would not require that schools 

conduct a nutrient analysis to determine 

compliance with the standards for 

calories, saturated fat, and sodium. SAs 

would be responsible for monitoring 

compliance with these three dietary 

specifications in schools selected for 

administrative reviews. (Currently, SAs 

conduct nutrient analysis for FBMP 

schools to determine the levels of eleven 

dietary specifications (calories, protein, 

vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, 

total fat, saturated fat, sodium, 

cholesterol, and dietary fiber). This 

proposal would support IOM’s 

recommendation to limit and monitor 

calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

school meals without burdening schools 

or SAs. 

Although not required, schools that 

have the resources to conduct a nutrient 

analysis would be able to continue to do 

so to assess how well they are meeting 

calorie, saturated fat, and sodium 

standards. SNDA III found that, in 

school year 2004–2005, about two-thirds 

of schools were in districts that 

conducted ongoing nutrient analysis of 

their menus. This finding suggests that 

many districts have the capability to 

conduct nutrient analysis. 

USDA intends to develop practical 

tools to help schools calculate the levels 

of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

school meals. The SAs are encouraged 

to develop practical calculation 

methods and provide technical 

assistance to schools when they are 

developing school menus to help align 

the planned meals with these three 

dietary specifications. 

Trans fat 

This proposed rule would require 

schools to minimize trans fat in school 

meals to be consistent with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines. The IOM report 

provides a practical method to minimize 

the trans fat content of school meals. To 

help schools reach the goal of zero 

grams of trans fat per serving, IOM 

recommended that schools only be 

allowed to use food products or 

ingredients that contain zero grams of 

trans fat per serving, as indicated on the 

nutrition label (FDA defines zero as less 

than 0.5 grams per serving) or 

manufacturer’s specifications. Foods 

that contain minimal amounts of 

naturally-occurring trans fat (such as 

beef and lamb) would be excluded from 

this requirement. Schools would also be 

required to add the trans fat 

specification and request the necessary 

documentation in their procurement 

contracts. 

If a product or ingredient used to 

prepare school meals has no nutrition 

labeling (e.g., institutional products) 

schools would be responsible for 

obtaining information, such as 

manufacturer or nutrition specifications, 

that confirms that the product contains 

zero grams of trans fat per serving. The 

trans fat information would be 

examined during an administrative 

review. 

Standards for Meals Selected by the 

Student (Offer Versus Serve) 

To achieve a reasonable balance 

between the goals of reducing food 

waste and preserving the nutritional 

integrity of school meals, the IOM 

committee recommended standards for 

meals as selected by the student. The 

committee formulated two offer versus 

serve options: A preferred option and a 

secondary option. 

Under IOM’s preferred option, a 

student may decline 1 food item at 

breakfast but must select 1 fruit or juice. 

For lunch, the student may decline 2 

food items but must select 1 fruit or 

vegetable. 

The secondary option formulated by 

IOM also requires the student to select 

1 fruit or juice at breakfast and 1 fruit 

or vegetable at lunch but allows the 

student to decline more food items. 

Under the secondary option, the student 

may decline 2 food items at breakfast 

and 3 food items at lunch. 

Although both options formulated by 

IOM promote the selection of fruits and 

vegetables, the preferred option is more 

conducive to preserving the nutritional 

integrity of the school meal. We are 

concerned that the secondary option 

allows the student to decline more food 

items than the current offer versus serve 

regulations. Therefore, this proposed 

rule would adopt IOM’s preferred 

option for offer versus serve with a 

slight modification that would allow a 

reimbursable breakfast to include a 

serving of fruit or a vegetable offered in 

place of fruit: 

• Student may decline 1 food item at 

breakfast but must select 1 fruit or 

vegetable. 

• Student may decline 2 food items at 

lunch but must select 1 fruit or 

vegetable. 

This slight modification is consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines emphasis 

on increasing the consumption of fruits 

and vegetables. 

Offer versus serve would be required 

at the high school level, as is currently 

the case, and it would continue to be 

available to middle and elementary 

schools at the discretion of the SFA or 

the SA. 

Summary of Proposed Meal 

Requirements 

Implementation of the proposed meal 

requirements (standards for menu 

planning and standards for meals 

selected by the student) would affect the 

following changes in the NSLP and SBP: 

On a daily basis: 

• Meals offered to each age/grade 

group would meet the meal pattern 

designed by IOM; 

• Fluid milk offered would be fat-free 

(unflavored or flavored) or unflavored 

low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less) and 

would include variety that is consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines; 

• Food products and ingredients used 

to prepare school meals would contain 

zero grams of trans fat per serving (less 

than 0.5 grams per serving) according to 

the nutrition labeling or manufacturer’s 

specifications; and 

• Meals selected by the students 

would include at least a fruit or 

vegetable, and students would not be 

able to decline more than two food 

items at lunch and one food item at 

breakfast. 

Over a 5-day school week: 

• Average calorie content of the meals 

offered to each age/grade group would 

fall within the minimum and maximum 

calorie levels specified by IOM; 

• Average saturated fat content of the 

meals offered to each age/grade group 

would be less than 10 percent of total 

calories; and 

• Average sodium content of the 

meals offered to each age/grade group 

would meet the intermediate targets 

established by USDA and not exceed the 

maximum level specified by IOM ten 

years post implementation of the final 

rule. 

This proposed rule includes several 

existing meal requirements that are 

restated without change in the proposed 

regulatory language. Such requirements 

include the provisions on meal choices, 

lunch periods, meal exceptions and 

variations, and fluid milk substitutes. In 

addition, some requirements for specific 

food components, such as meats/meat 

alternates, are retained in the proposed 

regulatory text. 

The meal patterns and nutrition 

standards for preschoolers and infants 

also remain unchanged; however, only 

the traditional FBMP approach would 

be allowed to plan meals for 

preschoolers. The State agencies would 

not be required to analyze the menus for 

preschoolers pending changes to the 

CACFP regulations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2505 

Proposed Changes in Monitoring 

Procedures 

This proposed rule would establish 

new procedures for monitoring 

implementation of, and compliance 

with, the new meal requirements and 

the dietary specifications for calories, 

saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat. As 

recommended by IOM, monitoring 

would focus on meeting the relevant 

Dietary Guidelines through the 

proposed meal requirements. The new 

monitoring procedures would also allow 

the opportunity to provide information 

and technical assistance to school 

foodservice staff for continuous quality 

improvement. 

Currently, SAs conduct two reviews 

to ensure compliance with program 

requirements. The SMI nutrition review 

assesses the nutritional quality of school 

meals. The Coordinated Review Effort 

(CRE) focuses on eligibility certification, 

meal counting and claiming, and meal 

elements. This proposed rule would 

discontinue the SMI reviews under 

§ 210.19 and strengthen CRE 

administrative reviews under § 210.18 

to enable SAs to monitor the quality of 

school meals and assist schools in 

continually improving performance. As 

part of the CRE Performance Standard 2, 

the SAs would be required to monitor 

compliance with the meal patterns, 

including ensuring that sufficient 

quantities of each component are 

offered. The SAs would also be 

responsible for calculating the levels of 

calories, saturated fat, and sodium for 

the meals offered by the school(s) 

selected for review and ensuring that 

the food products and ingredients used 

to prepare school meals contain zero 

grams of trans fats. To accomplish this, 

the following changes are proposed: 

(1) Establish a three-year review 

cycle—The IOM report recommends 

frequent monitoring to assess how well 

the new meal requirements are being 

implemented at the local level. This 

proposed rule would expand the ability 

of the SAs to monitor the quality of the 

meals offered at the local level by 

changing the review cycle from 5 years 

to 3 years, and by requiring SAs to 

monitor compliance with the meal 

pattern and the requirements for 

calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans 

fats. More frequent monitoring would 

also expand opportunities to provide 

technical assistance and mentoring to 

local operators as recommended by 

IOM. 

(2) Establish a two-week review 

period—In order to give the SAs a more 

complete view of the meals offered at 

the local level, this proposed rule would 

expand the review period from one to 

two weeks. SAs would review menu 

and production records for a two-week 

period to assess compliance with the 

meal pattern; conduct a weighted 

nutrient analysis to determine the 

average levels of calories, sodium, and 

saturated fat in the planned meals; and 

confirm that food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals contain zero grams of trans fat. 

(3) Include breakfasts in the CRE 

review—This proposed rule would 

require SAs to review the breakfast meal 

during the 2-week CRE review. Due to 

the many important meal requirements 

that IOM recommended for both the 

NSLP and the SBP, USDA believes that 

it is desirable to monitor the quality of 

breakfasts as part of the CRE review. 

In addition, SAs would continue to 

monitor the serving line and lunches 

counted at point of service to determine 

if the meals offered and selected the day 

of the onsite review contain the required 

food components and food quantities. If 

food quantities offered by the reviewed 

school appear to be insufficient or 

excessive, SAs would provide technical 

assistance and guidance, apply 

corrective action, and follow up to 

assess improvement in the quality of 

meals. The on-site visit, the nutrient 

analysis, and other information obtained 

from direct observation during the 

review period would give the SA a 

comprehensive view of the quality of 

the school meals and compliance with 

the meal requirements. 

USDA anticipates that the State 

monitoring activities will focus on 

technical assistance and corrective 

action following implementation of the 

new meal requirements. As currently 

done, SAs would be required to apply 

immediate fiscal action if the meals 

offered are completely missing one of 

the food components established in the 

new meal pattern. In addition, SAs 

would be required to take fiscal action 

for repeated violations of the vegetable 

subgroups and milk type requirements 

when (1) technical assistance has been 

provided and (2) corrective action has 

not resolved these specific violations. 

These requirements are easily 

understood by school food authorities 

and can be quickly identified by visual 

inspection without having specialized 

nutrition knowledge or training. 

However, because not all schools 

currently have knowledge or accurate 

tools to calculate the average levels of 

calories, saturated fat, sodium and trans 

fat in the meals offered during the week, 

this proposed rule would give SAs 

discretion to take fiscal action for such 

violations, as well as for food quantity 

and whole grain violations, provided 

that technical assistance and corrective 

action have taken place. The SAs would 

also be required to first use technical 

assistance and corrective action to 

address these deficiencies. 

Since the new requirements for 

calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans 

fat would only apply to the meals for 

school-aged children, the SAs would 

not have to conduct a nutrient analysis 

of the meals offered to preschoolers 

(ages 1–2 and 3–4) in a school selected 

for an administrative review pending 

changes to the CACFP regulations. 

Likewise, the proposed whole grains 

and fluid milk requirements would not 

apply to preschoolers’ meals. 

Technical Assistance 

IOM recommended technical 

assistance to help school foodservice 

staff develop and continuously improve 

menus, order appropriate foods, and 

control costs while maintaining quality. 

USDA intends to provide training and 

develop technical assistance resources 

to facilitate the transition to the new 

meal requirements. This would be 

accomplished by updating USDA menu 

planning resources; guidance materials 

on fruits, vegetables, and whole grain 

foods; the Child Nutrition Database; and 

requirements for nutrient analysis 

software. USDA will continue to 

collaborate with the National Food 

Service Management Institute to 

develop and provide appropriate 

training. In addition, USDA would 

disseminate information about the new 

requirements in public forums, such as 

the School Nutrition Association and 

American Dietetic Association meetings, 

and other national, regional and state 

conferences; and through the USDA 

Regional nutritionists who work with 

the School Meal Programs. 

Miscellaneous Proposed Changes 

USDA is using this opportunity to 

propose additional program changes 

that would support IOM’s 

recommendations or enhance the 

overall school nutrition program. 

Identification of a Reimbursable Meal 

USDA is proposing to require schools 

to identify the foods composing the 

reimbursable meal(s) for the day at or 

near the beginning of the serving line(s). 

Students and parents often do not know 

what food or menu items are included 

in the NSLP or SBP meal. Identifying 

the Program meal may avoid higher 

costs to the students from their 

unintentional purchase of a la carte 

foods, rather than the unit-priced school 

meal. This additional information 

would promote nutrition education by 

teaching students what foods are 

included in a balanced meal. Schools 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2506 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

would have discretion to identify the 

best way to provide this information on 

the meal serving line(s). 

Crediting 

Foods served as part of the School 

Meal Programs should be wholesome 

and easily recognized by children as 

part of a food group that contributes to 

a healthy diet. To support the Dietary 

Guidelines’ emphasis on whole fruits 

and vegetables, this proposal would 

disallow the crediting of any snack-type 

fruit or vegetable products (such as fruit 

strips and fruit drops), regardless of 

their nutrient content, toward the fruits 

component or the vegetables 

component. USDA does not currently 

allow snack-type foods such as potato 

chips or banana chips to be credited 

toward meeting the fruits/vegetables 

requirement; however, certain snacktype fruit products have been allowed to 

be credited by calculating the wholefruit equivalency of the processed fruit 

in the product using the FDA’s 

standards of identity for canned fruit 

nectars (21 CFR 146.113). The standard 

of identity for canned fruit nectars, 

however, has since been removed from 

the CFR. Therefore, this rationale for 

allowing certain snack-type fruit 

products to be credited in the meal 

pattern is no longer established in 

regulation. 

In addition, this proposal would 

require that all fruits and vegetables 

(and their concentrates, purees, and 

pastes) be credited based on volume as 

served with two exceptions: (1) Dried 

whole fruit and dried whole fruit pieces 

would be credited for twice the volume 

served; and (2) leafy salad greens would 

be credited for half the volume served. 

These exceptions are highlighted in the 

IOM report and the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines. This proposal would 

specifically change the current practice 

of crediting tomato paste and puree. 

Currently tomato paste and puree are 

credited as a calculated volume based 

on their whole-food equivalency using 

the percent natural tomato soluble 

solids in paste and puree, while other 

fruit paste and purees (such as 

blackberries puree) are credited based 

on actual volume as served. Under this 

proposal, schools would credit tomato 

paste and puree based on actual volume 

as served. Schools would not be allowed 

to credit a volume of fruit or vegetables 

that is more than the actual serving size. 

Fortification 

A basic premise of the Dietary 

Guidelines is that nutrients should 

come primarily from the consumption 

of whole foods that are not highly 

processed or heavily fortified. Current 

nutrition science suggests that a variety 

of factors in whole foods work together 

to generate health benefits. While 

certain nutrients in foods have been 

identified as being linked to specific 

health benefits, the effects are not 

always comparable when the nutrient is 

isolated from the food in which it is 

naturally present. 

This proposed rule seeks to reduce 

schools’ reliance on highly fortified 

foods. To promote consumption of 

naturally nutrient-dense foods, such as 

whole grains, fruits and vegetables, this 

proposed rule would eliminate the use 

of formulated grain-fruit products as 

defined in Appendix A to 7 CFR Part 

220. Formulated grain-fruit products are 

(1) grain-type products that have grain 

as the primary ingredient, and (2) grainfruit type products that have fruit as the 

primary ingredient. Both types of 

products must have at least 25 percent 

of their weight derived from grain. 

These food products typically contain 

high levels of fortification, rather than 

naturally occurring nutrients, and are 

high in sugar and fat. Such products do 

not support the Dietary Guidelines’ 

recommendation to consume fruits as a 

separate and important food group. 

Furthermore, formulated grain-fruit 

products are no longer necessary in the 

school meal programs. This product 

specification was originally adopted in 

response to the limited access that some 

schools faced in procuring or storing 

traditional breakfast foods. Today, 

schools can procure other breakfast 

options with similar shelf-life (e.g., 

ready-to-eat cereals and whole grain or 

enriched grain products) that would 

meet the operational needs of the school 

and the nutrient needs of children. 

USDA recognizes that fortification of 

some foods is an accepted practice to 

enhance or add nutrients. Often in such 

cases, fortification is an effective way to 

preserve nutrients lost during 

preparation or processing, or to increase 

the nutrient intake in consumer diets 

that normally may be lacking the added 

nutrients. Examples of such foods are 

enriched grain products, fortified 

cereals, and fluid milk (with added 

vitamins A and D). In most other 

instances, however, the use of highlyfortified food products is inconsistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines. 

Technical Changes to Appendices A and 

B 

This proposed rule would update 

Appendices A and B to 7 CFR Parts 210 

and 220. USDA is proposing to amend 

Appendix A to Part 220 by removing 

Formulated Grain-Fruit Products in its 

entirety for the reasons previously 

stated in the discussion of Fortification. 

Appendix B to Part 210 would be 

amended by removing the statement 

that affirms that Appendix B will be 

updated to exclude individual foods 

that have been determined to be 

exempted from the categories of Foods 

of Minimal Nutritional Value. Although 

USDA has published Notices in the past 

to inform the public of exempted foods, 

Appendix B has not been amended 

subsequently to reflect these 

exemptions. A list of these exempted 

foods is maintained and available to all 

State agencies participating in the 

Programs. There have been no changes 

to the categories of exempted foods and 

USDA will maintain the requirement to 

publish a Notice and update the 

regulations to reflect any changes to the 

categories. 

Implementation of Proposed Changes 

Until the final rule is implemented, 

meal reimbursement will be based on 

compliance with current program 

regulations in 7 CFR Part 210 and Part 

220. However, schools are strongly 

encouraged to take steps within current 

Program regulations to provide meals 

that are consistent with the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines, such as reducing sodium 

and saturated fat, and increasing the 

availability of fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid 

milk in the menus. Team Nutrition has 

developed practical guidance to help 

schools provide meals that reflect the 

Dietary Guidelines. (See http:// 

teamnutrition.usda.gov/Resources/ 

dgfactsheet_hsm.html.) 

Since the 2005 Dietary Guidelines 

were issued, USDA has provided 

technical assistance and guidance to 

help schools offer meals that reflect the 

recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines. USDA recognizes that 

changing children’s dietary habits is 

indeed a challenge for schools. 

Nutrition education is essential to help 

children accept new foods, change 

preferences, and make healthy choices. 

USDA’s Team Nutrition initiative will 

continue to assist SAs with their 

nutrition education efforts. 

The HealthierUS School Challenge is 

a voluntary certification initiative that 

recognizes schools that are providing 

nutritious food and beverage choices 

and nutrition education, physical 

education and opportunities for 

physical activity. The Challenge criteria 

help schools move closer to the new 

meal pattern requirements related to 

whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and 

low-fat and fat-free fluid milk. USDA is 

working with partner organizations and 

stakeholders to double the number of 

HealthierUS schools during school year 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2507 

6Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M., Curtin, L., Lamb, M., 

Flegal, K. (2010). Prevalence of High Body Mass 

Index in U.S. Children and Adolescents 2007–2008. 

Journal of American Medical Association, 303(3), 

242–249. 

7Trasande, L., Chatterjee, S. (2009). Corrigendum: 

The Impact of Obesity on Health Service Utilization 

and Costs in Childhood. Obesity, 17(9). 

8Whitaker, R.C., Wright, J.A., Pepe, M.S., Seidel, 

K.D., Dietz W.H. Predicting obesity in young 

adulthood from childhood and parental obesity. N 

Engl J Med 1997; 37(13):869–873; Serdula, M.K., 

Ivery, D., Coates, R.J., Freedman, D.S., Williamson, 

D.F., Byers, T. Do obese children become obese 

adults? A review of the literature. Prev Med 

1993;22:167–177. 

9Finkelstein, E., Trogdon, J., Cohen J., Dietz, W. 

(2009). Annual Medical Spending Attributable to 

Obesity: Payer-And Service-Specific Estimates. 

Health Affairs, 28(5). 

2010–2011 and to add 1,000 schools per 

year for two years thereafter. 

Team Nutrition and the HealthierUS 

School Challenge, and our joint efforts 

with the National Food Service 

Management Institute, have helped 

schools move in the right direction. 

USDA is confident that State and local 

program operators have made and will 

continue to make progress to further 

improve the quality of school meals and 

the dietary habits of school children. 

I. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be economically 

significant and was reviewed by the 

Office Management and Budget in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

As required for all rules that have 

been designated as significant by the 

Office of Management and Budget, a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was 

developed for this proposed rule and is 

included in the preamble. The following 

summarizes the conclusions of the RIA: 

Need for action: Section 9(a)(4) of the 

NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), added to 

the statute in 2004, requires the 

Secretary of Agriculture to issue 

regulations that increase the availability 

of foods recommended by the most 

recent ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans’’ in the Federal school meals 

programs. In addition, Section 9(f)(1) of 

the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(f)(1), requires 

schools that participate in the NSLP or 

SBP to offer lunches and breakfasts that 

are consistent with the goals of the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines. This 

proposed rule implements 

recommendations of the National 

Academy of Science’s Institute of 

Medicine (IOM). Under contract to the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), the IOM proposed changes to 

NSLP and SBP meal pattern 

requirements consistent with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines and the IOM’s 

Dietary Reference Intakes. 

Benefits: The proposed rule 

implements recommendations of the 

IOM that are designed to better align 

school meal patterns and nutrition 

standards with the IOM’s Dietary 

Reference Intakes and the goals of the 

Dietary Guidelines. In developing its 

recommendations, the IOM sought to 

address low intakes of fruits, vegetables, 

and whole grains among school-age 

children, and excessive intakes of 

sodium and discretionary calories from 

solid fats and added sugar. The 

proposed rule addresses these concerns 

by increasing the amount of fruit, the 

amount and the variety of vegetables, 

and the amount of whole grains offered 

each week to students who participate 

in the school meals programs. The rule 

would also replace higher fat fluid milk 

with low fat and skim fluid milk in 

school meals. And it would limit the 

levels of calories, sodium, and saturated 

fat in those meals. 

The linkage between poor diets and 

health problems such as childhood 

obesity are also a matter of particular 

policy concern, given their significant 

social costs. One in every three children 

(31.7%) ages 2–19 is overweight or 

obese.6 Along with the effects on our 

children’s health, childhood overweight 

and obesity imposes substantial 

economic costs, and the epidemic is 

associated with an estimated $3 billion 

in direct medical costs.7 Perhaps more 

significantly, obese children and 

adolescents are more likely to become 

obese as adults.8 In 2008, medical 

spending on adults that was attributed 

to obesity increased to an estimated 

$147 billion.9 In addition, a recent study 

suggests reducing dietary salt in 

adolescents could yield substantial 

health benefits by decreasing the 

number of teenagers with hypertension 

and the rates of cardiovascular disease 

and death as these teenagers reach 

young and middle age adulthood. 

Because of the complexity of factors that 

contribute both to overall food 

consumption and to obesity, we are not 

able to define a level of disease or cost 

reduction that is attributable to the 

changes in meals expected to result 

from implementation of the rule. 

As the rule is projected to make 

substantial improvements in meals 

served to more than half of all schoolaged children on an average school day, 

we judge that the likelihood is 

reasonable that the benefits of the rule 

exceed the costs, and that the proposal 

thus represents a cost-effective means of 

conforming NSLP and SBP regulations 

to the statutory requirements for school 

meals. Beyond these changes a number 

of qualitative benefits—including 

alignment between Federal program 

benefits and national nutrition policy, 

improved confidence of parents and 

families in the nutritional quality of 

school meals, and the contribution that 

improved school meals can make to the 

overall school nutrition environment, 

are expected from the rule. 

Costs: FNS estimates that the total 

costs of compliance with this rule will 

reach $6.8 billion over the five years 

ending in FY 2016. Year by year costs 

in millions, assuming implementation 

of a final rule at the start of SY 2012– 

2013 are summarized below. 

Costs (millions) 

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Food Costs ................................... $91.8 $626.5 $704.9 $968.9 $1,028.2 $3,420.4 

Labor Costs .................................. 89.6 611.4 687.9 945.6 1,003.4 3,337.9 

Total ...................................... 181.3 1,237.9 1,392.8 1,914.5 2,031.7 6,758.2 

The increases reflect increased costs to 

purchase the types of foods required by 

the proposed rule beyond those required 

to comply with current program rules— 

primarily increased fruits, vegetables, 

and whole grains—as well as increased 

labor costs due to more on-site food 

preparation, training for food service 

professionals, and some additional 

administrative costs. 

Alternatives: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

In response to NSLA Section 9(a)(4) 

amended into law in 2004, USDA 

contracted with IOM to assemble an 

expert panel to undertake a review of 

the nutritional needs of children, the 

recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines, and IOM’s Dietary 

Reference Intakes. USDA asked IOM to 

develop recommendations for updating 

NSLP and SBP meal patterns and 

nutrition requirements based on that 

review of need and nutrition science, 

with consideration given to operational 

feasibility and cost. 

The USDA contract with IOM called 

for the creation of a panel with 

representatives from the fields of public 

health, epidemiology, pediatrics, child 

nutrition and child nutrition behavior, 

statistics, and economics. The contract 

also called for representatives with 

knowledge of cultural differences in 

food preference and eating habits, 

experience in menu planning, and 

experience in managing and operating a 

school lunch and breakfast program. 

IOM held workshops at which the panel 

heard presentations from invited 

speakers, and solicited public input. 

The panel also accepted public 

comment on its planned approach to the 

project. 

The process undertaken by IOM was 

designed to consider different 

perspectives and competing priorities. 

The panel necessarily weighed the 

merits of alternatives as it developed a 

preferred option. USDA’s commitment 

was to implement IOM’s 

recommendations where feasible. This 

commitment is driven by the statutory 

requirement that schools serve meals 

that are consistent with the goals of the 

Dietary Guidelines. 

We did not consider alternatives that 

depart significantly from IOM’s 

recommendations and cannot satisfy our 

statutory obligation. Nevertheless, the 

proposed rule makes a few small 

changes to IOM’s recommendations. In 

addition, the rule contains a handful of 

provisions that are not addressed by 

IOM. The RIA provides a discussion of 

alternatives considered, including a 

Phase-In Implementation of IOM 

Recommendations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

with regard to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 

U.S.C. 601–612). Pursuant to that 

review, it has been determined that this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed requirements 

would apply to school districts, which 

meet the definitions of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ and ‘‘small 

entity’’ in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

A Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is 

included in the preamble. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes 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 the 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 by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. When such a statement 

is needed for a rule, section 205 of the 

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. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

conducted by FNS in connection with 

this proposed rule includes a cost/ 

benefit analysis and explains the 

options considered to implement the 

2005 Dietary Guidelines in the school 

meal programs. 

Prior to developing this proposed 

rule, FNS sought the assistance of the 

Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the 

National Academies to implement the 

2005 Dietary Guidelines in the NSLP 

and SBP in the least burdensome and 

costly manner. However, this proposed 

rule contains Federal mandates (under 

the regulatory provisions of Title II of 

the UMRA) that could result in costs to 

State, local, or Tribal governments or to 

the private sector of $100 million or 

more in any one year if State and local 

operators do not develop strategies to 

absorb the cost increases associated 

with increasing the availability of fruits, 

vegetables, and whole grains in the 

school menu. To meet the proposed 

requirements in a cost-effective manner, 

program operators would need to 

optimize the use of USDA Foods and 

adopt other cost-savings strategies in 

various areas of the food service 

operation, including procurement, 

menu planning, and meal production. 

Program operators have flexibility 

within the Federal requirements to run 

the School Meal Programs in a manner 

that fits local circumstances. 

Because childhood overweight and 

obesity are growing public health issues 

in the United States, schools should 

take a leadership role in helping 

students adopt healthy diets. Many 

schools are already providing more 

fruits, vegetables and whole grains as 

part of their efforts to enhance the 

school nutrition environment. Over 840 

schools nationwide have been 

recognized by FNS as part of the 

HealthierUS School Challenge 

(HealthierUS) for improvement in the 

quality of the meals served and the food 

choices. HealthierUS schools offer fresh 

fruits or raw vegetables, whole grain 

foods, legumes, and low-fat or fat-free 

fluid milk, and provide students with 

nutrition education and opportunity for 

physical activity. 

Executive Order 12372 

The NSLP is listed in the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 

10.555 and the SBP is listed under No. 

10.553. For the reasons set forth in the 

final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart 

V and related Notice published at 48 FR 

29114, June 24, 1983, this Program is 

included in the scope of Executive 

Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

Since the NSLP and SBP are Stateadministered, Federally funded 

programs, FNS headquarters staff and 

regional offices have formal and 

informal discussions with State and 

local officials on an ongoing basis 

regarding program requirements and 

operation. This structure allows FNS to 

receive regular input which contributes 

to the development of meaningful and 

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. 

Prior Consultation With State Officials 

Prior to drafting this proposed rule, 

FNS staff received informal input from 

various stakeholders while participating 

in various State, regional, national, and 

professional conferences. The School 

Nutrition Association, School Food 

Industry Roundtable, National Alliance 

for Nutrition and Activity, Association 

of State and Territorial Public Health 

Nutrition Directors, and the Center for 

Science in the Public Interest shared 

their views about changes to the school 

meals in writing. Numerous 

stakeholders also provided input at the 

public meetings held by IOM in 

connection with its school meals study. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2509 

Based on its independent research and 

information gathered from stakeholders, 

IOM issued recommendations which are 

the basis for this proposed rule. 

Nature of Concerns and the Need To 

Issue This Rule 

State Agencies and school food 

authorities want to provide the best 

possible school meals through the NSLP 

and SBP but are concerned about 

program costs and increasing program 

requirements. While FNS is aware of 

these concerns, section 9(a)(4) and 

section 9(f)(1) of the National School 

Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) and 

(f)(1), require that school meals reflect 

the most recent ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans’’ and promote the intake of 

the food groups recommended by the 

Dietary Guidelines. 

Extent To Which We Meet Those 

Concerns 

FNS sought the assistance of the 

Institute of Medicine to update the 

school meals in a practical and sound 

manner. FNS has considered the impact 

of this proposed rule on State and local 

program operators and has attempted to 

develop a proposal that would 

implement the 2005 Dietary Guidelines 

in the most effective and least 

burdensome manner. This proposed 

rule would simplify management and 

operation of the School Meal Programs 

by establishing a single food-based 

menu planning approach and the same 

age/grade groups in the NSLP and SBP, 

as recommended by the Institute of 

Medicine. The food-based menu 

planning system is currently used by 

approximately 70 percent of program 

operators. This proposed rule would 

retain the requirement that school meals 

meet nutrient requirements on average 

over the course of the week, and the 

offer versus serve provision, which 

helps schools control food cost and 

minimize food waste. This rule would 

also retain other existing regulatory 

provisions to the extent possible. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform.’’ This rule, when published as 

a final rule, is intended to have 

preemptive effect with respect to any 

State or local laws, regulations or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions. As proposed, the rule would 

permit State or local agencies operating 

the National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs to establish more 

rigorous nutrition requirements or 

additional requirements for school 

meals that are not inconsistent with the 

nutritional provisions of the rule. Such 

additional requirements would be 

permissible as part of an effort by a State 

or local agency to enhance the school 

meals and/or the school nutrition 

environment. To illustrate, State or local 

agencies would be permitted to 

establish more restrictive saturated fat 

and sodium limits. For these 

components, quantities are stated as 

maximums (e.g., ≤) and could not be 

exceeded; however, lesser amounts than 

the maximum could be served. 

Likewise, State or local agencies could 

accelerate implementation of the final 

sodium targets stated in this proposed 

rule in an effort to reduce sodium levels 

in school meals at an earlier date. 

However, State or local agencies would 

not, for example, be permitted to 

decrease the minimum calorie level or 

increase the maximum calorie level 

established for each grade group in this 

proposed rule as that would be 

inconsistent with the rule’s provisions. 

This rule is not intended to have a 

retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial 

challenge to the provisions of this rule 

or the application of its provisions, all 

applicable administrative procedures 

under § 210.18(q) or § 235.11(f) must be 

exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this proposed rule 

in accordance with USDA Regulation 

4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis,’’ 

to identify any major civil rights 

impacts the rule might have on program 

participants on the basis of age, race, 

color, national origin, sex or disability. 

After a careful review of the rule’s intent 

and provisions, FNS has determined 

that this proposed rule is not expected 

to affect the participation of protected 

individuals in the NSLP and SBP. This 

proposed rule is intended to improve 

the nutritional quality of school meals 

and is not expected to limit program 

access or otherwise adversely impact 

the protected classes. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

USDA will undertake, within 6 

months after this rule becomes effective, 

a series of Tribal consultation sessions 

to gain input by elected Tribal officials 

or their designees concerning the impact 

of this rule on Tribal governments, 

communities and individuals. These 

sessions will establish a baseline of 

consultation for future actions, should 

any be necessary, regarding this rule. 

Reports from these sessions for 

consultation will be made part of the 

USDA annual reporting on Tribal 

Consultation and Collaboration. USDA 

will respond in a timely and meaningful 

manner to all Tribal government 

requests for consultation concerning 

this rule and will provide additional 

venues, such as webinars and 

teleconferences, to periodically host 

collaborative conversations with Tribal 

leaders and their representatives 

concerning ways to improve this rule in 

Indian country. 

We are unaware of any current Tribal 

laws that could be in conflict with the 

proposed rule. We request that 

commenters address any concerns in 

this regard in their responses. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320), 

requires that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public 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 is a 

new collection. The new provisions in 

this rule, which do increase burden 

hours, affect the information collection 

requirements that will be merged into 

the National School Lunch Program, 

OMB Control Number #0584–0006, 

expiration date 5/31/2012. The current 

collection burden inventory for the 

National School Lunch Program is 

11,806,566 hours. These changes are 

contingent upon OMB approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

When the information collection 

requirements have been approved, FNS 

will publish a separate action in the 

Federal Register announcing OMB’s 

approval. 

Comments on the information 

collection in this proposed rule must be 

received by March 14, 2011. 

Send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, 

Washington, DC 20503. Please also send 

a copy of your comments to Lynn 

Rodgers-Kuperman, Program Analysis 

and Monitoring Brach, Child Nutrition 

Division, 3101 Park Center Drive, 

Alexandria, VA 22302. For further 

information, or for copies of the 

information collection requirements, 

please contact Lynn Rodgers-Kuperman 

at the address indicated above. 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the Agency’s functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the 

Agency’s estimate of the proposed 

information collection burden, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) 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 request for 

comments will be summarized and 

included in the request for OMB 

approval. All comments will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Title: Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs. 

OMB Number: 0584—NEW. 

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Abstract: This proposed rule would 

implement the recommendations of the 

2005 ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans’’ in the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) and School 

Breakfast Program (SBP), as required by 

section 9(a)(4) and section 9(f)(1) of the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758(9)(a) and (f). 

This rule is based on the final report 

‘‘School Meals: Building Blocks for 

Healthy Children,’’ issued by the 

Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academies on October 20, 2009 to help 

FNS implement the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines in the NSLP and SBP. This 

proposed rule would revise the lunch 

and breakfast meal patterns to increase 

the availability of fruits, vegetables, 

whole grains, and fat-free/low-fat fluid 

milk in the school menu. It would also 

increase the frequency of administrative 

reviews by State agencies from the 

current five-year cycle to a three-year 

cycle, and change the requirements for 

these reviews. This rule would impact 

the reporting and/or recordkeeping 

burden on school food authorities and 

State agencies. However, this rule 

would not increase or decrease the 

existing burden on local schools 

participating in the NSLP because they 

are already required to maintain menu 

and production records. This proposed 

rule would require State agencies to 

examine menu and production records 

during administrative reviews, and to 

maintain documentation related to fiscal 

action. 

Those respondents participating in 

the School Breakfast Program also 

participate in the National School 

Lunch Program, thus the burden 

associated with the School Breakfast 

Program will be carried in the National 

School Lunch Program. The average 

burden per response and the annual 

burden hours are explained below and 

summarized in the charts which follow. 

Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 

State Education Agencies (57) and 

School Food Authorities (6,983). 

Estimated Number of Respondents for 

this Proposed Rule: 7,040. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent for this Proposed Rule: 

3.87217. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

27,260. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 

75,842. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2511 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.003</GPH>
2512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2513 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FNS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act 2002, 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. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Agency: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.005</GPH>
2514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10The figures in Table 1 are USDA projections of 

the number of program meals served and the value 

of USDA reimbursements for those meals. These 

figures are baseline Federal government costs of the 

NSLP and the SBP estimated for the President’s 

budget proposal for FY 2011. Elsewhere in this 

document, baseline costs refer to the cost to schools 

of serving meals that satisfy current program 

requirements. 

11USDA program data. 

12Reimbursement rates and annual inflation 

adjustments are set by statute, not regulation. The 

proposed rule does not alter current reimbursement 

rates. Reimbursement rates for school lunch under 

current nutrition standards are specified in Sections 

4(b)(2) and 11(a)(2) of the NSLA (42 USC 1753(b)(2) 

and 42 USC 1759a(a)(2)). Breakfast reimbursement 

rates are specified in Section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child 

Nutrition Act (42 USC 1773(b)(1)(B)). Both lunch 

and breakfast reimbursement rates are subject to the 

annual inflation adjustment prescribed by Section 

11(a)(3) of the NSLA (42 USC 1759a(a)(3)). 

Title: Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs. 

Action 

a. Nature: Proposed Rule. 

b. Need: Section 103 of the Child 

Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act 

of 2004 inserted Section 9(a)(4) into the 

National School Lunch Act requiring 

the Secretary to promulgate rules 

revising nutrition requirements, based 

on the most recent Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans, that reflect specific 

recommendations, expressed in serving 

recommendations, for increased 

consumption of foods and food 

ingredients offered in school nutrition. 

This proposed rule amends Sections 210 

and 220 of the regulations that govern 

the National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) and the School Breakfast 

Program (SBP). The proposed rule 

implements recommendations of the 

National Academies’ Institute of 

Medicine (IOM). Under contract to the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), IOM proposed changes to 

NSLP and SBP meal pattern 

requirements consistent with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines and IOM’s Dietary 

Reference Intakes. The proposed rule 

advances the mission of the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) to provide 

children access to food, a healthful diet, 

and nutrition education in a manner 

that promotes American agriculture and 

inspires public confidence. 

c. Affected Parties: The programs 

affected by this rule are the NSLP and 

the SBP. The parties affected by this 

regulation are USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service, State education 

agencies, local school food authorities, 

schools, students, and the food 

production, distribution and service 

industry. 

Contents 

Abbreviations 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Proposed Meal Requirements 

III. Cost/Benefit Assessment 

A. Summary 

1. Costs 

2. Benefits 

B. Food and Labor Costs 

1. Baseline Cost Estimate 

2. Proposed Rule Cost Estimate 

3. Food Cost Drivers 

4. Comparison of FNS and IOM Cost 

Estimates 

5. Uncertainties 

C. Administrative Impact 

D. Food Service Equipment 

E. Implementation of Proposed Rule—SFA 

Resources 

F. Impact on Participation 

G. Benefits 

IV. Alternatives 

V. References 

VI. Appendix A 

Abbreviations 

The following abbreviations are used 

throughout this document: 

CN Child Nutrition Programs 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

CRE Coordinated Review Effort 

DRI Dietary Reference Intake 

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

IOM Institute of Medicine 

NSLA National School Lunch Act 

NSLP National School Lunch Program 

RDA Recommended Dietary Allowance 

SA State Agency 

SBP School Breakfast Program 

SY School Year 

SFA School Food Authority 

SLBCS–II School Lunch and Breakfast Cost 

Study II 

SMI USDA School Meals Initiative for 

Healthy Children 

SNDA–III School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment III 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

I. Background 

The National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) is available to over 50 million 

children each school day; an average of 

31.6 million children per day ate a 

reimbursable lunch in fiscal year (FY) 

2010. The School Breakfast Program 

(SBP) served an average of 11.6 million 

children daily. Schools that participate 

in the NSLP and SBP receive Federal 

reimbursement and USDA Foods 

(donated commodities) for lunches and 

breakfasts that meet program 

requirements. In exchange for this 

assistance schools serve meals at no cost 

or at reduced price to income-eligible 

children. Federal meal reimbursements 

and USDA Foods totaled $13.3 billion 

in FY 2010. FNS projections of the 

number of meals served and Federal 

program costs are summarized in Table 

1.10

TABLE 1—PROJECTED NUMBER OF MEALS SERVED AND TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAM COSTS

[In millions] 

Fiscal year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

NSLP: 

Lunches Served ................................ 5,409.6 5,477.2 5,532.0 5,581.8 5,626.5 5,671.5 

Program Cost .................................... $12,116.9 $12,513.5 $12,737.0 $12,834.8 $12,851.4 $12,940.2 

SBP: 

Breakfasts Served ............................ 2,062.4 2,124.3 2,166.7 2,201.4 2,236.6 2,272.4 

Program Cost .................................... $3,117.9 $3,270.0 $3,383.8 $3,460.0 $3,552.2 $3,669.3 

In FY 2010, schools served 2.9 billion 

free NSLP lunches, 0.5 billion reduced 

price lunches, and 1.8 billion full price 

or ‘‘paid’’ lunches. Schools served 1.5 

billion free breakfasts, 0.2 billion 

reduced price breakfasts, and 0.3 billion 

paid breakfasts. These figures do not 

include non-Federally reimbursable a la 

carte meals or other non-program 

foods.11

Reimbursement rates for meals served 

under the current meal patterns are 

established by law and are adjusted 

annually for inflation.12 In school year 

(SY) 2010–2011, the Federal 

reimbursement for a free breakfast for 

schools in the contiguous United States 

and ‘‘not in severe need’’ was $1.48; the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2515 

13School year 2010– NSLP and SBP 

reimbursement rates, and the minimum value of 

donated foods, can be found in the July 19, 2010 Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 137, pp. 41797 and 

41798. 

Federal reimbursement for a free lunch 

to schools in SFAs in the contiguous 

United States that served fewer than 60 

percent free and reduced price lunches 

was $2.72. Schools that participate in 

the NSLP also receive USDA Foods for 

each free, reduced price, and paid lunch 

served, as provided by Section 6 of the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act (NSLA). Table 2 provides a 

breakdown of breakfast and lunch 

reimbursements in SY 201–2011, 

including USDA Foods. 

Under Section 9(a)(4) and Section 

9(f)(1) of the NSLA, schools that 

participate in the NSLP or SBP must 

offer lunches and breakfasts that are 

consistent with the goals of the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. School lunches must 

provide one-third of the Recommended 

Dietary Allowances (RDA) for protein, 

calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C, on 

average over the course of a week; 

school breakfasts must satisfy onefourth of the RDAs for the same 

nutrients. Current nutrition 

requirements for school lunches and 

breakfasts are based on the 1995 Dietary 

Guidelines and the 1989 RDAs. (School 

lunches and breakfasts were not 

updated when the 2000 Dietary 

Guidelines were issued because those 

recommendations did not require 

significant changes to the school meal 

patterns.) The 2005 Dietary Guidelines, 

provide more prescriptive and specific 

nutrition guidance than earlier releases, 

and require significant changes to 

school meal requirements. 

The United States Department of 

Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS) contracted with the 

National Academies’ Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) in 2008 to examine 

current NSLP and SBP nutrition 

requirements. IOM formed an expert 

committee tasked with comparing 

current school meal requirements to the 

2005 Dietary Guidelines and to current 

Dietary Reference Intakes. The 

committee released its 

recommendations in late 2009 (IOM 

2009). For a summary discussion of the 

scientific standards that guided the 

committee, and the development of 

recommended targets for micro- and 

macronutrients, see the preamble to the 

proposed rule. 

II. Summary of Proposed Meal 

Requirements 

The proposed rule adopts the IOM 

recommendations with only minor 

modifications (see section IV). In 

general, IOM recommended new 

requirements for menu planning that: 

• Increase the amount and variety of 

fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; 

• Set a minimum and maximum level 

of calories; and 

• Increase the focus on reducing the 

amounts of saturated fat and sodium 

provided in school meals. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.006</GPH>
2516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14 Information in this table is summarized from 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

15Tables 4 and 5 appear as Tables 8–1 and 8–2 

in IOM’s report on the school meals programs, 

School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children 

(IOM 2009). The recommendations in these tables 

are adopted by the proposed rule with one small 

exception: non-starchy vegetables may be 

substituted for fruit at breakfast (see Table 3, note 

c). 

16The food group recommendations presented in 

Tables 4 and 5 are based on a set of nutrient targets 

developed by IOM (see IOM 2009 for a detailed 

discussion of that process). Tables 7–2, O–2, and O– 

3 of the IOM report compare IOM’s nutrient targets 

to the RDA targets that underlie the current meal 

patterns. Readers of the IOM report may notice that 

differences in current rule and recommended food 

group quantities (Tables 4 and 5) do not always 

track differences between IOM’s nutrient targets 

and current rule RDA targets (IOM report tables 7– 

2, O–2, and O–3). For instance, IOM’s nutrient 

targets for protein are twice as great as the RDA 

protein targets for elementary and high school 

students; IOM’s protein targets are close to three 

times as great as the RDA targets for middle school 

students. By comparison, IOM’s recommended 

Tables 4 and 5 15 compare the meal 

pattern recommendations proposed in 

this rule to current requirements for 

breakfast and lunch respectively.16 Key 

differences include: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2517 

number of meat servings are little different than the 

number of servings under current program rules. 

The reason for the discrepancy is that student 

intakes of protein currently exceed RDA targets (see 

Tables VI.2 and VII.2 in FNS 2007). IOM nutrient 

targets for protein are fully satisfied by the meat and 

legume recommendations in Tables 4 and 5 (see the 

discussion on pages 164 and 165 of IOM 2009). 

Readers of the IOM report should compare the 

IOM’s nutrient targets to the RDA values in report 

Tables 7–2, O–3, and O–4, rather than to the RDA 

values in report table E–4. Table E–4 figures are 

based on the 1989 RDAs. RDA values in Tables 7– 

2, O–3, and O–4 are current. Pages 118–120 of the 

IOM report (IOM 2009) discuss how the IOM 

nutrient targets compare to the minimum RDA 

standards for school meals specified by Section 

9(b)(1) of the NSLA (42 USC 1758(f)(1)). 

• The number of fruit and vegetable 

servings offered to students over the 

course of a week would double at 

breakfast and would rise substantially at 

lunch. 

• Schools would no longer be 

permitted to substitute between fruits 

and vegetables; each has its own 

requirement, ensuring that students are 

offered both fruits and vegetables every 

day. 

• A minimum number of vegetable 

servings would be required from each of 

four vegetable subgroups. 

• Initially, half of grains offered to 

students would have to be whole grain 

rich. Two years after implementation, 

all grain products offered would have to 

be whole grain rich. 

• Schools would be required to 

substitute low fat and skim milk for 

higher fat content milk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17 ‘‘With regard to increasing whole grains and 

especially to reducing the sodium content of meals, 

the committee acknowledges the need for a gradual 

phase-in to accustom children to the changes in 

school meals and also to give the market time to 

respond to changes in demands (expressed as 

purchase specifications) from school food service 

directors.’’ (IOM 2009, pp. 172, 199) 

The proposed rule differs slightly 

from the IOM recommendations in that 

it proposes a quicker transition to a 

whole grain requirement consistent with 

the Dietary Guidelines. IOM 

recommended that the proportion of 

whole grains to refined grains on school 

menus exceed 50 percent within 

‘‘approximately 3 years’’ of 

implementation of revised meal 

patterns.17

In contrast, the proposed rule 

accelerates the transition to Dietary 

Guidelines recommendations to the 

second year after implementation of the 

rule. At that time, it requires that 

schools offer only grain products that 

are whole grain rich, rather than permit 

schools to offer half of all grains in the 

form of 100 percent whole grain foods 

and the other half as refined grains (one 

of the options suggested by IOM). 

The proposed rule adopts with a 

slight modification IOM’s 

recommendation for ‘‘offer vs. serve’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2519 

18The proposed rule would make no change to 

the meal requirements for pre-kindergarten (pre-K) 

children. But, the rule would require that schools 

serving meals to pre-K children adopt food-based 

menu planning (FBMP) for consistency with the 

rule’s FBMP requirement for meals served to older 

children. Because the rule proposes no substantive 

change to the pre-K meal requirements we assume 

that the rule has no impact on the cost of serving 

meals to these children. More than 2⁄3 of elementary 

schools used traditional or enhanced FBMP in SY 

2004–2005 (USDA 2008, vol. 1, p. 36) and would 

need to make no changes at all to comply with the 

rule’s pre-K menu planning requirement. For 

elementary schools that serve meals to pre-K 

children using a nutrient based menu planning 

system, the rule would require a change to FBMP. 

But that change is required for meals served to older 

children as well, and the administrative cost of that 

change is incorporated into the labor cost estimate 

of this analysis. 

19Some of the difference between the 3.4 cent 

and 7.2 cent lunch figures and the 18.8 cent and 

25.3 cent breakfast figures are due to food inflation, 

not to the change in the whole grain requirement. 

The lower numbers are estimates for the end of FY 

2012 (the start of SY 2012–2013). The higher 

numbers are for FY 2015. 

20 IOM 2009, p. 148. 

21The SLBCS–II found that costs other than food 

and labor accounted for 9.9 percent of reported SFA 

costs. These costs include ‘‘supplies, contract 

services, capital expenditures, indirect charges by 

the school district, etc.’’ (USDA 2008, pp. 3–5) 

requirements as part of a reimbursable 

meal. Under this requirement, a student 

may decline 1 food item from the meal 

pattern at breakfast but must select 1 

fruit or vegetable. For lunch, the student 

may decline 2 food items but must 

select 1 fruit or vegetable. Our estimates 

of the impact of the proposed rule 

reflect this flexibility in estimating the 

quantities of foods actually served to 

students. 

III. Cost/Benefit Assessment 

A. Summary 

1. Costs 

The proposed rule will more closely 

align school meal pattern requirements 

with the science-based 

recommendations of the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines. These changes will increase 

the amount of fruits, vegetables, and 

whole grains offered to participants in 

the NSLP and SBP.18 The proposed 

meal patterns will also limit certain fats 

and reduce calories and sodium in 

school meals. Because some foods that 

meet these requirements are more 

expensive than foods served in the 

school meal programs today, the food 

cost component of preparing and 

serving school meals will increase. 

The biggest contributors to this 

increase are the costs of serving more 

vegetables and more fruit, and replacing 

refined grains with whole grains. We 

estimate that food costs may increase by 

3.4 cents per lunch served and 18.8 

cents per breakfast served on initial 

implementation of the proposed 

requirements. Two years after 

implementation, when all grains served 

must be whole grain rich, the food costs 

may increase to 7.2 cents per lunch 

served and 25.3 cents per breakfast.19 In 

aggregate, we estimate that the proposed 

rule may increase SFA food costs by 

$3.4 billion from FY 2012 through FY 

2016. The annual increase in food costs, 

once the 100 percent whole grain 

requirement takes effect, may be about 

$1 billion. 

Compliance with this rule is also 

likely to increase labor costs. Serving 

healthier school meals that are 

acceptable to students may require more 

on-site preparation, and less reliance on 

prepared foods. IOM did not estimate 

the overall required increase in labor 

costs to implement its recommended 

changes in meal requirements, but noted 

an analysis of data from some 

Minnesota school districts that showed 

that ‘‘healthier’’ meals had higher labor 

costs—principally because of increased 

use of on-site preparation.20

For purposes of this impact analysis, 

labor costs are assumed to grow so as to 

maintain a constant ratio with food 

costs, consistent with findings from a 

national study of school lunch and 

breakfast meal costs (USDA 2008). In 

practice, this suggests that food and 

labor costs may increase by nearly equal 

amounts relative to current costs. 

Additional costs of compliance with the 

rule are discussed in subsections III C 

and III D of this analysis.21

The estimated overall costs of 

compliance are summarized in Table 6. 

For purposes of this analysis, the rule is 

assumed to take effect on July 1, 2012, 

the start of school year (SY) 2012–2013. 

The additional requirement to offer only 

whole grain rich grain products is 

assumed to begin in SY 2014–2015. 

The analysis estimates that total costs 

may increase by $6.8 billion through 

fiscal year (FY) 2016, or roughly 12 

percent when fully implemented in FY 

2015. The estimated increases in food 

and labor costs are equivalent to about 

14 cents for each reimbursable school 

lunch and about 50 cents for each 

reimbursable breakfast in FY 2015. 

These costs would be incurred by the 

local and State agencies that control 

school food service accounts. 

TABLE 6—PROJECTED COST OF PROPOSED RULE

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Food Costs ....................................................................... $91.8 $626.5 $704.9 $968.9 $1,028.2 $3,420.4 

Labor Costs ...................................................................... 89.6 611.4 687.9 945.6 1,003.4 3,337.9 

State Agency Administrative Costs ................................. 0.1 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.6 36.9 

Total .......................................................................... 181.5 1,246.8 1,401.9 1,923.8 2,041.3 6,795.2 

Percent Change Over Baseline ......................... 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.0 12.2 10.5 

2. Benefits 

The primary benefit of this proposed 

rule is to align the regulations with the 

requirements placed on schools under 

NSLA to ensure that meals are 

consistent with the goals of the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines and the 

Dietary Reference Intakes. In increasing 

access to children for such meals it will 

address key inconsistencies between the 

diets of school children and Dietary 

Guidelines by (1) increasing servings of 

fruits and vegetables, (2) replacing 

refined-grain foods with whole-grain 

rich foods, and (3) replacing higher-fat 

dairy products with low-fat varieties. It 

also results in a number of additional 

benefits, including alignment between 

Federal program benefits and national 

nutrition policy, improved confidence 

by parents and families in the 

nutritional quality of school meals, and 

the contribution that improved school 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

meals can make to the overall school 

nutrition environment. 

B. Food and Labor Costs 

1. Baseline Cost Estimate 

Food Costs: The analysis begins with 

an assessment of the cost of purchasing 

food to meet the rule’s food-based meal 

requirements. The estimated increase in 

food cost is the difference between the 

cost of serving the quantities and types 

of foods used to meet current 

requirements and the cost of serving the 

quantities and types of foods outlined in 

the proposed rule. 

The data sources that we use in this 

analysis, and their contribution to our 

food cost estimate, are summarized in 

Table 7. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2521 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.010</GPH>
2522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22 If patterns of student selection of foods is 

different in private schools than it is in public 

schools, then the reliance on public school data 

alone may bias our results. However, enrollment in 

public schools accounts for 97 percent of total 

enrollment in NSLP participating schools. Public 

schools account for more than 98 percent of total 

enrollment in SBP participating schools (USDA 

program data). Because public schools account for 

such a large share of total enrollment by 

participating schools, we expect that any 

differences in selection patterns between public and 

private schools would have little impact on our 

analysis. 

We first totaled the value of food 

served by food group, as reported by 

schools in a national school nutrition 

assessment (SNDA–III), separately for 

lunch and breakfast. SNDA–III provides 

an estimate of the amount or quantity 

(in grams) of foods offered and served in 

the school lunch and breakfast programs 

for SY 2004–2005, based on a nationally 

representative sample of all 

participating public schools.22 SNDA– 

III provides quantities of both minimally 

processed single foods (such as whole 

fruit, fruit juice, milk, and vegetables) 

and combination foods or entrees (such 

as beef stew, macaroni and cheese, and 

breakfast burritos). We summed the 

quantities of foods served to generate 

total gram weights for each single food 

and combination food category. We then 

divided these sums by SNDA–III’s count 

of total meals served to generate average 

per-meal gram amounts for the same 

broad food categories. 

We estimated the cost per gram 

within each food category using detailed 

price and quantity information collected 

as part of another nationally 

representative sample of public schools 

in SY 2005–2006 (SLBCS–II). SLBCS–II 

provides information on the number of 

servings, the average gram weight per 

serving, total grams served, and the cost 

per serving for a comprehensive list of 

single foods and combination entrees. 

The SLBCS–II dataset provides 

sufficient information to estimate 

weighted average prices for the same 

broad food categories identified in 

SNDA–III. 

We computed preliminary per-meal 

baseline costs for breakfast and lunch as 

the product of the food quantities 

reported in SNDA–III and the unit 

prices computed from the SLBCS–II. 

Because the food prices available for 

this analysis are from SY 2005–2006, we 

inflated our estimates by the actual and 

projected increase in prices since that 

time. We computed a set of food group 

inflators weighted by SNDA–III’s 

relative mix of foods served by schools 

in SY 2004–2005. We used the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI–U) for the 

specific food items in our weighted 

group averages. Because the mix of 

foods served in school breakfasts differs 

from the mix served at lunch (the grain 

group, for example, is weighted more 

heavily with bread at lunch, and more 

heavily with cereal at breakfast) we 

computed two sets of food group 

inflators. For years through 2009, these 

inflators are constructed with actual CPI 

values. For years after 2009, the food 

group inflators rely on historic 5-year 

averages. Food group inflation factors 

are summarized in Table 8. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2523 

23Computed by USDA from CPI figures from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figures for 

combination foods are based on the CPI values for 

the Food at Home series. 

24The projected growth above in meals served 

through FY 2011 reflects the difference between 

FNS estimates for FY 2011 prepared for the 2011 

President’s Budget and actual meals served in FY 

2010. The remaining percentages are FNS 

projections prepared for the FY 2011 President’s 

Budget. 

The value of USDA Foods and the 

value of cash in lieu of such food 

donations enters into both our baseline 

and proposed rule cost estimates; we 

treat them as food ‘‘costs’’ in both 

estimates. This is the same approach 

used in the SLBCS–II to estimate the 

cost of preparing and serving school 

meals. 

We assume in the analysis that the 

types of commodities offered to schools 

in future years may satisfy the food 

group requirements of the proposed rule 

as effectively as they do now. USDA’s 

annual commodity purchase plan, 

developed by FNS in consultation with 

the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Farm Service Agency, and others, is 

driven by school demand for particular 

products as well as by current prices, 

available funds, and the variable nature 

of agricultural surpluses. 

In large measure the variety of USDA 

Foods offered to schools are already 

well positioned to support the proposed 

requirements. In recent years USDA has 

purchased relatively more canned foods 

and meats with reduced levels of fat, 

sodium, and sugar for school 

distribution. As products such as butter 

and shortening have been removed from 

the USDA Foods available to schools, 

new products such as whole grain pasta 

have been added. The proposed rule is 

likely to move school demand towards 

a greater emphasis on these new 

offerings as schools introduce new 

menus. We assume that the contribution 

of USDA Foods to the cost of preparing 

school meals will not change after 

implementation of the rule. 

The final step in constructing the 

baseline cost estimate was to multiply 

the per-meal cost estimates by the 

projected number of breakfasts and 

lunches served through our 5-year 

forecast period. Projected growth in the 

number of NSLP and SBP meals served 

in the absence of the proposed rule is 

shown in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—PROJECTED BASELINE GROWTH IN REIMBURSABLE MEALS SERVED 24

Fiscal year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Lunches ................................. meals (billions) .............................. 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 

percent change ............................. 2.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 

Breakfasts ..................................... meals (billions) .............................. 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 

percent change ............................. 5.3 3.0 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Appendix A contains a set of tables 

that detail the calculations described 

above. The appendix tables present 

baseline and proposed rule food prices, 

food quantities, and meals served for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.012</GPH>
2524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25The rule’s food group requirements are 

expressed in servings per week. Because we are 

developing an average cost per meal we divide 

these weekly figures by 5. Some of the rule’s 

requirements are given in ranges of servings, such 

as 10–12 meat or meat alternate servings (for 

lunches) per high school child per week (see Table 

3). FNS’s primary cost estimate targets the 

midpoints of the rule’s food group requirements 

where requirements are expressed as ranges. 

each year from FY 2012 through FY 

2016. 

Note that our baseline per-meal cost 

estimates are averages. They reflect the 

variety of meals served across all NSLP 

and SBP participating schools. Some 

schools may be much closer than others 

to serving meals that meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule, and 

the costs of compliance with the 

proposed rule may therefore vary at the 

school level. The use of an average 

baseline cost estimate is appropriate, 

however, for estimating the aggregate 

cost of compliance across all schools. 

2. Proposed Rule Cost Estimate 

Food Costs: Both our baseline and 

proposed rule food cost estimates rely 

on quantity and price information 

reported by schools in SNDA–III and 

SLBCS–II. These datasets contain 

detailed information on the quantity, 

variety, and unit prices of foods offered 

and served to students. Many of the 

records on these datasets describe single 

item foods that are served alone or are 

used in school recipes. But other 

records describe prepared or heat-andserve entrees and other ‘‘combination 

foods.’’ As described above, we 

developed our baseline cost estimate by 

multiplying the gram weight of food 

items served by their cost per gram. For 

both single item foods and combination 

foods, prices and quantities are given in 

SLBCS–II and SNDA–III; our baseline 

cost estimate required limited 

processing of these datasets. 

For the proposed rule we continue to 

rely on prices per gram from SLBCS–II. 

But for quantities served we need to 

look to the requirements of the rule 

rather than to SNDA–III. We use the 

midpoints of the rule’s food group 

requirements, expressed in servings 

rather than grams, to estimate the 

quantities of food that schools must 

purchase.25 For single foods, the 

number of program-creditable food 

group servings per gram is a function of 

the foods themselves (density and fat 

content, for example) and whether the 

foods (primarily vegetables) are served 

raw or cooked. We relied on several 

sources for this information, including 

the USDA Food Buying Guide and the 

National Nutrient Database for Standard 

Reference. For combination foods we 

relied on the USDA’s child nutrition 

food labels and the USDA’s recipe 

database; these sources contain the 

result of analyses performed by food 

manufacturers and USDA. Because the 

sources for program-creditable servings 

per gram are different for single foods 

and combination foods, we need to 

separate single foods from combination 

foods and estimate their costs 

separately. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2525 

26As with the baseline estimate, we prepared 

separate estimates of meals served under the 

proposed rule for breakfast and lunch. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

A basic assumption underlying the 

estimated cost of reimbursable meals 

under the proposed rule is that schools 

will continue to serve entrees that have 

proven popular with students on 

current school menus. Some of these 

entrees may be modified to replace a 

portion of their refined grains with 

whole grains, or starchy vegetables with 

other vegetable varieties. But, because 

pizza, burritos, and salad bars are 

successful items today, this impact 

analysis assumes that they will remain 

on school menus under the proposed 

rule. 

We separated combination foods from 

single food items in the SNDA–III and 

SLBCS–II datasets.26 Using USDA food 

codes and the descriptive food labels 

found on the records of both datasets, 

we divided the combination foods into 

sub-categories such as chili, beef dishes, 

lasagna, chicken sandwiches, macaroni 

and cheese, and peanut butter and jelly. 

Recognizing that there is variation 

within these groups, we selected a 

sample of the most commonly served 

varieties, and retrieved paper food 

labels with matching USDA food codes 

from USDA’s Child Nutrition food label 

collection (CN labels). 

CN labels are affixed to many of the 

commercially prepared and processed 

foods purchased by school food 

authorities. The labels provide 

information on serving size and the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.013</GPH>
2526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

27Many large commercial food vendors prepare 

their own CN labels to help market their foods to 

SFAs. Other labels are developed by USDA. 

28Because CN crediting values and MyPyramid 

equivalents are not the same, information from the 

MyPyramid database was used only to determine 

relative shares of vegetable or grain subtypes. FNS 

also used the MyPyramid database to determine if 

particular combination foods contained any dark 

green vegetables, orange vegetables, etc. 

29Our take rates are weighted averages computed 

from all school level records on SNDA–III. We cap 

individual school take rates for any food group at 

100%. We assume that these take rates remain 

unchanged after implementation of the proposed 

rule for two primary reasons: lack of an evidencebased alternative, and to avoid understating the 

costs of the rule. We discuss our assumption of 

constant take rates, and examine the cost 

implications of altering that assumption, in section 

III.B.5. 

30The amount of refined grains in combination 

foods in excess of proposed rule requirements are 

offset by subtracting the value of an equivalent 

amount of single food refined grain products from 

the proposed rule’s per-meal cost. 

31Note that we are only referring to the 

incremental cost of foods above the quantities 

already purchased by schools (singly or in 

combination items), not the overall cost of all foods 

in the proposed meal patterns. 

number of cup and ounce equivalents of 

meat, meat alternate (such as cheese, 

eggs, legumes, or soy protein), grains, or 

vegetables that schools may credit 

toward current reimbursable meal 

pattern requirements.27 We averaged the 

crediting information for several 

varieties within each combination food 

category to generate representative food 

credits for the category. 

CN labels are not available for some 

combination foods. However, foods with 

similar descriptions are often found in 

USDA’s recipe database. The USDA 

recipe database provides the same type 

of food crediting information found on 

CN labels. We used the crediting 

information from the recipe database 

when CN labels were unavailable for 

sampled combination foods. FNS 

averaged the crediting information from 

labels and recipes when both sources 

returned data for particular combination 

foods. 

CN labels and USDA recipes do not 

indicate whether creditable grain 

servings are refined or whole grains, nor 

do they specify what fraction of 

creditable vegetable servings are 

satisfied by dark green, deep yellow, 

starchy, or other varieties. But, USDA’s 

MyPyramid database breaks down total 

grain and vegetable content for given 

foods into those subcategories or 

varieties. We matched USDA food codes 

for the sample of combination foods 

against the MyPyramid database in order 

to estimate relative shares of whole and 

refined grains, and vegetable varieties 

for the combination foods served.28

With these average food credits, and 

with unit prices from the SLBCS–II, we 

estimated a price per creditable ounce 

or cup equivalent of meat, grain, 

vegetable, and fruit for each 

combination food served. We then 

computed a weighted average price per 

food credit for combination foods as a 

whole, using the SLBCS–II’s relative 

gram weight of each item. Finally, we 

multiplied the average price and food 

credit per gram by SNDA–III’s total 

gram weight of combination foods 

served per reimbursable meal at the 

elementary, middle, and high school 

levels. 

These steps generate a price, and a set 

of food group credits, contributed by 

combination foods to the average 

elementary, middle, and high school 

lunch and breakfast. 

We subtracted the food credits 

accrued by combination foods from a set 

of school-level food group targets that 

represent the requirements of the 

proposed rule after adjustment for 

student selection. Under the proposed 

rule, as under current program rules, 

students need not take all of the food 

items offered to them in order for their 

lunch or breakfast to qualify for Federal 

reimbursement. The difference between 

what is offered to students and what 

they select is the ‘‘take rate.’’ We 

computed average take rates by school 

level for milk, meat/meat alternate, fruit, 

vegetables, and grains from SNDA–III 

and applied those rates, unchanged, to 

the proposed rule’s food group 

requirements from Tables 4 and 5.29

These adjusted requirements are 

estimates of what elementary, middle, 

and high schools are likely to serve to 

students after implementation of the 

proposed rule. The unadjusted 

requirements are what schools must 

offer to their students to be in 

compliance. 

The take-rate adjusted requirements 

not satisfied by combination foods must 

be met with single offerings of meat or 

meat alternates, grains, fruit, vegetables, 

and milk. We computed weighted 

average prices for these broad food 

groups, and for dark green, deep yellow 

and other vegetable varieties, from the 

SLBCS–II dataset. We estimated the cost 

of whole grains relative to all grain and 

bread products with information 

contained in a food price database 

developed by USDA’s Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The 

prices per unit of these foods, 

multiplied by the balance of the 

proposed rule’s requirements that are 

not met by combination foods, give a 

total cost per meal for single item foods. 

Note that this analytic framework uses 

an identical set of combination foods in 

the baseline and proposed rule cost 

estimates; we do not attempt to 

construct a reformulated set of 

combination foods to satisfy the 

proposed rule’s requirements for whole 

grains or dark green, yellow, and other 

vegetable varieties. The deficits in 

whole grains and in dark green and 

other vegetable varieties are satisfied 

entirely through increased offerings of 

single foods.30 As a result, the cost per 

unit of combination foods served is 

unchanged in the baseline and under 

the proposal, and the entire cost of 

meeting the new rule’s requirements is 

reflected in the cost of single foods. 

In practice, we expect manufacturers 

may offer reformulated versions of 

popular combination foods, and that 

schools may incorporate more whole 

grains and vegetable varieties in their 

entree recipes, so that students may not 

be expected to consume all of their 

whole grains and healthier vegetables as 

single foods. Implicit in this modeling 

approach is the assumption that the cost 

of serving more whole grains and 

vegetable varieties is similar, whether 

those foods are part of combination 

recipes or single items. The reasoning 

behind this assumption is that the likely 

effect of these reformulations on the cost 

of combination foods is uncertain. 

While some varieties of combination 

foods may help schools meet the new 

requirements at lower cost than single 

foods, others may be developed to 

provide greater student acceptance or 

ease of preparation than single items. 

These products could command higher 

prices. We thus assume that, on average, 

these two propensities combine to result 

in no net difference in the cost of whole 

grains and vegetable varieties as 

combination foods or as single items.31

The proposed rule encourages schools 

to meet the fruit requirement with 

whole fruit rather than juice ‘‘whenever 

possible’’ in order to increase fiber 

consumption. Schools may therefore 

find it necessary to offer more whole or 

cut-up fruit relative to fruit juice than 

they offer today. For this reason, this 

cost estimate assumes that the proposed 

rule’s entire increase in the fruit group 

requirement may be satisfied by schools 

through additional servings of whole or 

cut-up fruit; the estimate assumes that 

schools may serve no more fruit juice to 

students under the proposed rule than 

they serve today. As a result, there is no 

added cost for fruit juice in Table 11. 

The methodology outlined above 

generates a set of per-meal cost 

estimates for breakfast and lunch under 

the requirements of the proposed rule. 

Like our baseline estimates, these are 

multiplied by weighted food group 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2527 

32 IOM 2009, p. 110. 33 Ibid. 34 IOM 2009, p. 148. 35 Ibid. 36USDA 2008, p. 3–5. 

37USDA 2008, p. 3–9. 

38The estimates contained in this analysis 

assume labor costs equal to food costs multiplied 

by (44.5/45.6), the ratio of reported labor to food 

costs in the SLBCS–II. 

39Labor costs as a share of the total costs of 

preparing school meals were found to be 43.8 

percent in FNS’s SY 1992–1993 School Lunch and 

Breakfast Cost Study I, and 44.5 percent in the SY 

2005–2006 School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study 

II (a statistically insignificant difference). Food 

costs as a percent of total costs grew slightly from 

45.6 percent in SY 1992–1993 to 48.3 percent in SY 

2005–2006. But this change, too, is statistically 

insignificant. USDA 2008, p. 9–2. 

40For purposes of this analysis, the new 

standards are assumed to take effect at the start of 

SY 2012–2013. Because the 2012–2013 school year 

begins in July 2012, there is just a small cost in 

Federal FY 2012. Note that these figures assume no 

effect on student participation. We discuss the 

possible effects of the proposed rule on student 

participation in section III.F. We examine the effect 

of alternate participation assumptions in section 

III.B.5. 

41Two years after implementation of the rule, all 

grains servings offered to meet meal pattern 

requirements must be whole grain rich. If the rule 

is implemented in SY 2012–2013, then the 100 

percent whole grain requirement takes effect in SY 

2014–2015 or FY 2015. 

inflation factors, then multiplied by the 

projected number of meals served to 

generate projected aggregate costs 

through FY 2016. 

Labor costs: Compliance with this 

rule is also likely to increase labor costs 

because of the need for more on-site 

preparation, and less reliance on 

prepared foods, than current 

requirements. The challenge faced by 

schools in reducing the sodium content 

of school meals, one element of both the 

IOM recommendations and the 

proposed rule, illustrates the need for 

additional labor hours by school kitchen 

staff. 

[M]ore local food preparation and the use 

of a greater proportion of fresh foods and 

frozen vegetables could result in acceptable 

school meals with a lower sodium content. 

However, many food production kitchens are 

designed to heat and hold food items rather 

than to prepare them.32

In addition to the implied need for 

new kitchen equipment, IOM notes that 

‘‘switching from heat and hold to food 

production requires the addition of staff. 

Those districts that estimate meals per 

labor hour (MPLH) to monitor 

productivity may see an unfavorable 

decrease in their numbers.’’ 33

If schools choose to prepare more 

meals on-site to meet new requirements, 

IOM sees the need for ‘‘greater 

managerial skill,’’ and ‘‘more skilled 

labor and/or training.’’ 34 At the same 

time, lesser reliance on prepared foods 

offers some opportunity for offsetting 

savings. 

An empirical analysis of data from 330 

Minnesota school districts found that 

‘‘healthier’’ meals had higher labor costs (for 

on-site preparation) but lower costs for 

processed foods (Wagner, et al., 2007). The 

authors call for funds to be made available 

for labor training and kitchen upgrades. They 

suggest that higher Federal meal 

reimbursement rates may be unnecessary 

(under the assumption that the meals do not 

cost more to produce because lower food 

costs offset higher labor costs).35

The effect of the proposed rule’s meal 

requirements on the mix of food and 

labor costs is unclear. The proposed rule 

requires schools to offer relatively more 

foods with higher unit costs than 

schools now offer to their students. The 

rule requires, for example, that schools 

replace many of their refined grain 

foods with whole grain substitutes. 

Because prices for whole grain products 

tend to exceed the prices of similar 

products made with refined grains, 

savings from eliminating a particular 

refined grain product is more than offset 

by the cost of its whole grain 

counterpart. Where pre-baked whole 

grain foods are simply substituted for 

pre-baked refined grain products, or 

whole grain flour is substituted for 

refined flour in existing recipes, the 

added cost of serving these new foods 

is strictly a food cost; labor costs may 

not increase at all. 

But the rule includes other provisions 

that are likely to increase both food and 

labor costs. One is the requirement that 

schools offer more vegetables, from a 

variety of vegetable subgroups, than 

schools tend to offer today. Some 

schools may choose to meet those 

targets by offering vegetables in school 

salad bars. It is not difficult to imagine 

that the cost of installing and 

maintaining a salad bar could increase 

the overall cost of school meal 

production. Similarly, to meet the 

proposed rule’s calorie and fat 

requirements, schools may find it 

necessary to rely less on pre-purchased 

entrees, and hire more central kitchen or 

cafeteria workers to prepare healthier 

meals from scratch. 

SLBCS–II data show that the cost of 

purchasing food accounted for 45.6 

percent of SFA reported costs, on 

average. Labor accounted for an 

additional 44.5 percent of reported SFA 

costs. The remaining 9.9 percent of 

reported costs are attributable to 

‘‘supplies, contract services, capital 

expenditures, indirect charges by the 

school district, etc.’’ 36 Labor costs are 

broadly defined in the SLBCS–II to 

include the costs of foodservice 

administrative tasks such as planning, 

budgeting, and management, and 

foodservice equipment maintenance.37

Some of these tasks are detailed in 

section III.C.1. These tasks include 

training food preparation staff, servers, 

and cashiers. They also include the 

work of individuals who plan menus 

and prepare recipes. 

For purposes of this analysis, we 

assume that the relative contributions of 

food and labor to the total cost of 

preparing reimbursable school meals 

will remain fixed at the levels observed 

in the SLBCS–II. As a result, we 

estimate that labor costs increase on a 

nearly dollar for dollar basis with 

estimated food costs.38 We estimate that 

the proposed rule may increase schools’ 

food costs by about 12 percent. 

Although labor costs relative to food 

costs have held steady over many 

years,39 this approach may overstate 

labor costs. We explore the potential 

effect of labor costs growing at a 

somewhat lower rate in section III.B.5. 

Food and Labor Cost Summary: Table 

10 summarizes the estimated increase in 

food and labor costs associated with the 

proposed rule through FY 2016.40 (The 

final two rows of Table 10 also include 

the estimated administrative costs to 

State agencies.) Overall, we estimate 

that the proposed rule would increase 

the total cost of reimbursable school 

meals by $6.8 billion over five years; the 

cost of food would increase by $3.4 

billion, and the cost of labor would 

increase by $3.3 billion. In the first year 

of full implementation (FY 2015),41 the 

combined cost of food and labor is 

expected to be about 12 percent higher 

under the proposed rule than under 

existing requirements. The estimated 

additional cost of food for a 

reimbursable lunch increases from 

about 3.4 cents in 2012 to 7.7 cents in 

2016; the equivalent increase in food 

costs for a reimbursable breakfast grows 

from 18.8 cents to 26.1 cents. These 

rates roughly double—to 15.1 cents and 

51.6 cents—when the estimated cost of 

labor is included. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

3. Food Cost Drivers 

Table 11 provides a breakdown in the 

estimated food costs of the proposed 

rule by seven broad food categories. 

Consistent with the Dietary Guidelines, 

the proposed rule will require schools to 

offer more fruits, vegetables, and whole 

grains than they currently offer today. 

Changes in school demand also 

impact food producers. The figures in 

Table 11 indicate that the economic 

costs and benefits of the proposed rule 

may not be shared equally by producer 

groups. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED FOOD COSTS BY FOOD CATEGORY

[Dollars in millions] 

Food group 

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Milk ............................................... ¥$4.4 ¥$29.0 ¥$29.8 ¥$30.5 ¥$31.3 ¥$125.1 

Meat or Meat Alternate ................ 3.1 22.5 24.9 27.6 30.5 108.6 

Fruit Juice .................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Fruit (non-juice) ............................ 42.3 286.1 301.4 317.1 334.1 1,281.0 

Vegetables ................................... 75.6 515.2 547.8 581.2 617.5 2,337.3 

Refined Grains ............................. ¥116.0 ¥787.5 ¥964.7 ¥1,766.5 ¥1,869.1 ¥5,503.8 

Whole Grains ............................... 91.2 619.3 825.3 1,840.0 1,946.5 5,322.3 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2529 

42See section III.B.5. for an examination of the 

cost implications of altering this assumption. 

43 IOM excluded menus that did not offer a 

reduced fat or fat free unflavored milk, offered only 

one entree, offered 15 or more entree options, 

offered juice drinks rather than 100% fruit juice, or 

offered dessert every day. IOM 2009, p. 307 

44FNS caps individual school take rates at the 

food group category to 100 percent. 

45As discussed elsewhere in this impact analysis, 

our take rate assumptions are intended to avoid 

understating the cost of the proposed rule given the 

uncertain response of both students and school 

foodservice workers to the new meal pattern 

requirements. We test the cost implications of 

adopting different take rates in section III.B.5. 

46 IOM 2009, p. 136. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED FOOD COSTS BY FOOD CATEGORY—Continued 

[Dollars in millions] 

Food group 

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Total Cost of Proposal .......... 91.8 626.5 704.9 968.9 1,028.2 3,420.4 

Milk: This impact analysis estimates 

that the amount of milk served to 

students may not change after 

implementation of the proposed rule.42

However, the rule does require schools 

to serve only low-fat or fat-free milk in 

the school meals programs. Because the 

per-unit cost of low-fat and fat-free milk 

is less than the average per-unit cost of 

the mix of milk products now served in 

schools, the cost of serving milk under 

the proposed rule is reduced. 

Fruit Juice: The estimate assumes that 

schools may satisfy the rule’s increased 

fruit requirement entirely through 

additional servings of whole or cut-up 

fruit, not fruit juice. We expect that 

schools may have to encourage 

consumption of additional whole or cutup fruit in order to satisfy this 

requirement. The cost estimate assumes 

that the amount of fruit juice served to 

students may not increase above the 

levels assumed in the baseline estimate. 

As a result, the relative share of whole 

or cut-up fruit to fruit juice servings 

offered to (and taken by) students may 

increase after implementation of the 

rule. 

Grains: The proposed rule initially 

requires that half of grains offered to 

students be whole grain rich. Beginning 

in SY 2014–2015, the rule requires that 

all grains served be whole grain rich. 

This change is reflected in the large 

changes in both the whole and refined 

grains figures between FY 2014 and FY 

2016. 

Note that the total amount of grain 

products served under the proposed 

rule may be less than the amount served 

in the baseline (the per-meal amount 

taken in SNDA–III). The effect of this 

net reduction in total grains served is 

reflected in figures for fiscal years 2012 

to 2014, where the cost decrease for 

refined grains exceeds the cost increase 

for whole grains. Throughout the 

estimation period, we assume that the 

unit cost of whole grains exceeds the 

unit cost of comparable refined grain 

products. Despite this, the net reduction 

in total grain products served through 

FY 2014 more than offsets the increased 

unit cost of whole grains. After FY 2014, 

when the rule’s 100 percent whole grain 

rich requirement takes effect, the higher 

relative cost of whole grains to refined 

grains exceeds the savings from the net 

reduction in grain products served. 

4. Comparison of FNS and IOM Cost 

Estimates 

IOM prepared its own food cost 

estimate for its recommended meal 

pattern changes. The methodology 

behind that estimate is discussed in 

School Meals: Building Blocks for 

Healthy Children (IOM 2009). While 

IOM relies on SLBCS–II and SNDA–III, 

the same primary sources used by FNS, 

to estimate unit costs and baseline 

quantities served, its methodology 

differs from ours in several ways. 

Perhaps the most significant 

difference is in the establishment of 

baselines. We used all records on the 

SNDA–III dataset to estimate baseline 

quantities of food served and student 

take rates. IOM limited its analysis to a 

set of six representative baseline menus 

selected from the SNDA–III dataset. 

IOM selected one 5-day lunch menu and 

one 5-day breakfast menu for each of 

three age-grade groups (elementary, 

middle, and high school) at random 

from a subset that excluded practices 

identified as uncommon.43 The goal of 

both methodologies is to estimate a 

baseline food cost representative of all 

schools that participate in the Federal 

school meals programs. We have not 

attempted to isolate and quantify the 

effect of this methodological difference 

on our cost estimates. 

Another important difference between 

the IOM and FNS estimates is our use 

of different student take rates in 

preparing food cost estimates for the 

recommended meal patterns. We 

computed take rates from SNDA–III and 

applied them, largely unchanged, to the 

food group serving requirements of the 

proposed rule.44 We do not increase 

take rates in anticipation of greater 

demand for better meals, nor reduce 

take rates in anticipation of a decline in 

student acceptance of new vegetable 

varieties, whole grains, or low fat milk 

relative to the starchy vegetables, 

refined grains, and higher fat milk on 

current school menus.45 IOM modified 

observed take rates from SNDA–III 

where the expert judgment of committee 

members and school meal practitioners 

deemed it appropriate.46 Additional 

differences in FNS and IOM take rates 

can be attributed to IOM’s use of six 

representative school menus in its 

analysis; IOM computed its take rates 

from those schools alone. FNS take rates 

are computed from all schools on the 

SNDA–III dataset. 

IOM estimated that food costs would 

increase by 4 to 9 percent for lunch, 

depending on student take rates for 

fruits and vegetables. For breakfast, IOM 

estimated an increase in food costs of 18 

to 23 percent. Both of these ranges are 

based on unadjusted SY 2005–2006 

prices from the SLBCS–II. In addition, 

both are for the requirements 

recommended for the first year of 

implementation, not including the more 

stringent whole grain requirement 

recommended for later introduction. 

The comparable FNS figures are 3 

percent for lunch and 26 percent for 

breakfast. 

5. Uncertainties 

We made several simplifying 

assumptions in developing this cost 

estimate, reflecting gaps in available 

data and evidence. The most significant 

simplifications are discussed in Table 

12. In most cases, our primary estimate 

reflects conservative assumptions, to 

avoid understating the costs of the 

proposal. In this section, we describe 

the impact of several alternative 

assumptions on the estimate. The cost 

impacts of these alternatives are 

presented in Table 14. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

47We cap individual food group take rates at 100 

percent in our proposed rule cost estimate. 

TABLE 12—SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS

Item Explanation and implications of simplifying assumptions 

Take Rates ......................... For each of several food groups, we used SNDA–III data to compute average ‘‘take rates’’ equal to the percentage 

of food servings taken by students for each serving offered to them. Take rates under current program rules 

vary by school, grade level, and menu planning system. They are, at best, a rough predictor of student behavior 

under the proposed rule, which imposes a single food-based meal planning system across all schools, and requires schools to offer a mix of foods somewhat different than many students are accustomed to. We apply 

these take rates to generate a primary cost estimate. But, recognizing the uncertainty of these take rates, the 

cost implications of different take rate assumptions are examined in the uncertainties section of the impact analysis. 

Student Participation .......... The cost estimate assumes no change in student participation following introduction of the rule’s new meal pattern 

requirements. However, we recognize that participation may increase due to better meals or decrease when favorite school foods are replaced with unfamiliar or less appealing options. We chose not to estimate a participation effect given the uncertainty about how schools may incorporate new foods into their menus, and what 

changes schools may make to a la carte and other non-NSLP/SBP ‘‘competitive’’ foods, factors known to affect 

NSLP/SBP participation. Schools have a financial interest in preserving the revenue stream that comes with 

serving Federally-reimbursable school meals. It is also unclear whether participation effects, if any, may prove 

temporary or permanent. We estimate the cost of the rule under an assumption of increased and reduced student participation in the uncertainties section. 

USDA Foods ...................... We include USDA Foods (formerly USDA commodities) in both the quantity and value of food served in its baseline and proposed cost estimates. This treatment of USDA Foods is consistent with the SLBCS–II which includes the value of USDA Foods in its computation of the cost of producing a school meal. We assume that 

USDA Foods will contribute comparably to the overall cost of preparing school meals under current and proposed program rules. We believe it is reasonable to ignore the value of USDA Foods in computing the estimated cost increase of the proposal. 

Whole Grains ...................... We apply a single take rate to both whole grain rich and refined grain products. A less conservative approach 

would have applied a lower take rate to whole grain foods, at least when offered singly, rather than as part of a 

combination entree. Further, this take rate is the same take rate observed in SNDA–III where the relative share 

of whole grain rich products is lower than the 50 percent share that schools must offer in the first two years of 

implementation, and much lower than the 100 percent share that must be offered thereafter. Testimony before 

the IOM expert committee by University of Minnesota Professor Leonard Marquart documented steps SFAs can 

take to phase in whole grains in a manner that promotes high take rates. 

Labor Rates ........................ We assume that the relative contributions of food and labor to the total cost of preparing reimbursable school 

meals will remain fixed at the levels observed in the SLBCS–II study. The study found that the cost of purchasing food accounted for 45.6 percent of SFA reported costs on average, while labor accounted for 44.5 percent of reported costs. We therefore estimate that labor costs may increase on a nearly dollar for dollar basis 

with estimated food costs. Our assumption leads to a substantial increase in estimated labor costs, one that assumes schools may rely less on prepared foods and more on on-site preparation. We re-estimate the cost of the 

proposed rule assuming a smaller increase in labor costs in the uncertainties section. 

Macronutrient Requirements and Calories.The cost estimate developed in this impact analysis is based entirely on the cost of adding or deleting foods from 

particular food groups. 

The cost estimate accounts for current price differences in whole grains compared to refined grain products, low 

fat milk compared to 2 percent or whole milk, whole fruit compared to fruit juice, and vegetables by subcategory. 

But it does not account directly for differences in the costs of comparable combination entrees with different levels of sodium, fat, or calories. SNDA–III found that school lunches offered to students in SY 2004–2005 provided, on average, about 11 percent of calories from saturated fat. The proposed rule would limit this to 10 percent—a relatively modest reduction. 

Our cost estimate does take into account the added cost of more fruits and vegetables. It also takes into account 

the cost of shifting away from starchy vegetables, which reduces the relative share of french fries in the proposed rule estimate. 

Finally, the estimate accounts for the replacement of higher fat content milk with low fat and skim milk. All of these 

steps implicitly incorporate the cost of offering lower calorie and lower fat content meals into our estimate. We 

make an explicit assumption that a reduction in sodium can be achieved at minimal cost, at least over the short 

term, when proposed sodium requirements are only partially phased-in. This is one of the very few assumptions 

that, if wrong, tend to understate the cost of the proposed rule. But, given the decision to err on the side of overstating costs when making most other assumptions, we believe that the upside risk to an error on this assumption is small. 

FNS and IOM Food Group Take Rates: 

For all food groups, we assume that 

observed (baseline) take rates from 

SNDA–III will continue to characterize 

student behavior after implementation 

of the proposed rule’s meal 

requirements.47 These take rates are 

weighted averages across schools that 

operated under nutrient-based, 

traditional food-based, and enhancedfood based systems in SY 2004–2005, 

calculated as follows: 

Take rate = number of servings taken 1/ 

(Servings offered 2/meal * number 

of meals 3) 

1Based on SNDA–III analysis of observed 

meals taken by students. 2Based on SNDA–III analysis of school 

menus/recipes. 3Based on SNDA–III observations of daily 

meal counts. 

Data are not available to assess how 

student behavior across all schools may 

change in response to menus that 

simply offer more fruits, vegetables, and 

whole grains. One approach to model 

that response would be to apply take 

rates from schools that offered higher 

than average amounts of these foods in 

SY 2004–2005, but this occurred in a 

relatively small subset of schools 

sampled in SNDA–III; conclusions 

drawn based on their behavior may be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2531 

48 IOM 2009, p. 307 

49See IOM 2009, pp. 309–315, for all of IOM’s 

food group take rate assumptions. Note that some 

of IOM’s assumed take rates are presented as ranges. 

For the cost estimate in Table 12, FNS uses the 

midpoint of these ranges. 

50 IOM take rates appear in tables L–1 through L– 

6 of IOM’s School Meals report. IOM 2009, pp. 309– 

315. 

51 It is worth recognizing that the differences 

between IOM’s estimate and our primary estimate 

also reflect differences in baseline assumptions. We 

did not alter our baseline take rates for this test. 

misleading. In addition, upon 

implementation of the rule, schools may 

attempt to influence student behavior by 

developing appealing new menu items, 

or by taking other steps to encourage 

increased consumption of the fruits, 

vegetables, low-fat milk products, and 

whole grains emphasized by the rule. 

Because of these unknowns, FNS 

adopted a static take-rate assumption in 

developing its primary cost estimate. 

IOM departed from observed take 

rates in developing its assumptions for 

its own cost estimate, drawing on expert 

opinion from school meal practitioners 

about likely student behavior. IOM’s 

assumed take rates, ‘‘which are based on 

data from SNDA–III but are adjusted to 

consider the recommended Meal 

Requirements, represent estimates that 

the committee considers realistic.’’ 48

Tables 13a and 13b compare the take 

rates applied by IOM and by FNS in 

developing their respective cost 

estimates.49

TABLE 13a—IOM AND FNS BREAKFAST TAKE RATES AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF IOM RECOMMENDATIONS AND FNS 

PROPOSED RULE

Food group 

IOM Breakfast take-up rates FNS Breakfast take rates 

Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High 

Fluid Milk ...................................... 98% ................. 92% ................. 96% ................. 90% 81% 81% 

Meat/Meat Alternate .................... 62% or more .... 68% or more .... 62% or more .... 85% 84% 82% 

Fruit .............................................. 70% ................. 70% ................. 75% ................. 84% 82% 77% 

Grain ............................................ 100% ............... 100% ............... 100% ............... 89% 81% 83% 

TABLE 13b—IOM AND FNS LUNCH TAKE RATES AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF IOM RECOMMENDATIONS AND FNS 

PROPOSED RULE

Food group 

IOM Lunch take-up rates USDA Lunch take rates 

Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High 

Fluid Milk ...................................... 98% 97% 88% 91% 81% 78% 

Meat/Meat Alternate ..................... 100% 100% 100% 91% 91% 90% 

Fruit .............................................. 80% 80% 60% 70% 58% 50% 

Vegetables ................................... 55% 60% 65% 85% 83% 86% 

Grain ............................................ 65%–100% 65%–100% 70–100% 86% 86% 79% 

Subsections a through c, below, 

explain three alternative applications of 

IOM take rate assumptions. 

a. Fruit and Vegetable Take Rates—Use 

IOM Estimates 

In Table 14, Section A, we substitute 

the fruit and vegetable take rates used 

by IOM to model student behavior after 

implementation of new meal patterns 

for the take rates used in FNS’s primary 

cost estimate under the proposed rule.50

IOM applied lower take rates than FNS 

for vegetables, but applied higher take 

rates for fruit. The reduced cost estimate 

presented in Table 14, Section A simply 

substitutes the post-implementation 

fruit and vegetable take rates assumed 

by IOM for the post-implementation 

take rates assumed by FNS. The net 

result of using IOM’s assumptions 

would reduce the estimated cost of 

implementing the proposed rule by $3.5 

billion. 

b. IOM Fruit and Vegetable Take Rates 

with Labor Cost Adjustment 

The effect of using IOM’s vegetable 

take rates is to reduce the change in 

food cost for lunch in implementing the 

proposed rule to zero. Under our 

approach, labor costs are assumed to 

remain fixed, relative to food costs, at 

the ratio estimated in the SLBCS–II. As 

a result, the figures in Table 14, Section 

A assume no increase in the labor costs 

of preparing lunches under the 

proposed rule. However, the work 

required to prepare lunches (and 

breakfasts) that meet the new food 

group, macronutrient, and calorie 

requirements could increase even if the 

costs of purchasing food for those meals 

is about equal under current and 

proposed rules. 

Table 14, Section B reflects estimated 

food costs using IOM’s estimated fruit 

and vegetable take rates, and the labor 

costs estimated by FNS for its primary 

estimate (from Table 6). This revised 

estimate assumes that the relationship 

between food and labor costs diverges 

from the relationship observed in 

SLBCS–II and the net effect of this 

assumption would reduce the estimated 

cost of implementing the proposed rule 

by $1.8 billion. 

c. Using All IOM Take Rates 

As described in section III.B.4, IOM 

and FNS took different approaches to 

anticipating students’ response to the 

proposed meal pattern changes. IOM 

relied on observed take rates from 

SNDA–III as well as the best judgment 

of school foodservice practitioners. 

While some of IOM’s take rates are 

higher than the ones used in our 

primary estimate, others are lower. The 

net effect of substituting IOM postimplementation take rates for FNS postimplementation take rates for all food 

groups (milk, meat, meat alternate, fruit/ 

fruit juice, vegetables, and grain 

products) is displayed in Table 14, 

Section C. The net effect is a cost 

estimate that differs from our primary 

estimate by about 10 percent, a 

reduction in our primary cost estimate 

of $676 million.51

d. Cost of Whole Grains—Reduction 

over Time 

The proposed rule requires schools to 

replace refined grains with whole grain 

rich foods. In the first two years of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

52 IOM 2009, p. 8–22 

53This reduction in cost comes at the expense of 

reduced Federal meal reimbursements. 

54USDA 2007, vol. I, p169. For breakfast, schools 

tend to perform better, though just 30 percent 

offered meals that met the SMI standard for 

calories; see p. 204. 

55USDA 2007b, vol. I, p. 116. The comparable 

rates for breakfast were 48 percent with no error, 

and 11 percent with error rates above 20 percent. 

implementation, whole grain rich 

products must make up half of all grain 

products offered to students. By the 

third year, schools must offer only 

whole grain rich products. At present, 

whole grain rich products cost more 

than similar refined grain products. The 

primary cost estimate developed above 

assumes that the relative price of whole 

grain rich to refined grain products will 

remain constant at FY 2009 levels 

throughout the five year forecast period. 

Part of the price difference, however, 

may be due to low supply of whole 

grain products in the market—in turn 

influenced by current low demand by 

schools. As IOM explains: 

Of greater concern is the relative lack of 

available whole grain-rich processed 

products on the market and acceptable in the 

school meals program. Hence some cost 

increases would be expected for the less 

available processed whole grain-rich 

products in the market. Several new whole 

grain products are being introduced through 

the USDA Foods program; over time, the 

availability of whole grain-rich products is 

expected to expand.52

The difference in price between 

whole grain rich and refined grain 

products may diminish over time. Table 

14, Section D provides estimates of the 

cost of the proposed rule under the 

assumption that the difference in price 

between whole grain rich and refined 

grain products will disappear entirely at 

a rate of one-third per year from FY 

2013 to FY 2015. The net result of this 

assumption would reduce the estimated 

cost of implementing the proposed rule 

by $2.5 billion. 

e. Change in Participation—2 Percent 

Increase 

As discussed in Table 12 above, we 

assumed that student participation 

would not change following the 

introduction of new meal requirements. 

Table 14 Sections E and F model the 

effects of altering that assumption. 

Section E estimates the effect of a two 

percent increase in student participation 

on the cost of the rule relative to our 

primary cost estimate in Table 6. The 

dollar figures in Section E are the 

estimated cost to schools of preparing 

all meals served under our baseline 

assumption plus an additional 2 

percent. Per meal costs for all of these 

additional meals are taken from Table 

10. The additional meals are eligible for 

USDA reimbursement at the appropriate 

free, reduced price, or paid rates. 

However, the figures shown in Section 

E are not offset by these increased 

Federal reimbursements. The net cost to 

schools, after accounting for Federal 

reimbursements, would be lower. 

Because these costs reflect the provision 

of improved meals to additional 

children, we would expect a 

commensurate increase in the benefits 

resulting from addition of more fruits, 

vegetables, and whole grains to the diets 

of participating children. This 

participation assumption would result 

in a $1.4 billion increase over the cost 

of our primary estimate. 

f. Change in Participation—2 Percent 

Decrease 

Table 14, Section F models the effect 

of a two percent decrease in 

participation upon implementation of 

the new rule. A reduction in 

participation reduces the cost of 

compliance with the rule, relative to the 

primary cost estimate in Table 6.53

Again, because the cost reduction 

reflects the provision of improved meals 

to fewer children, we would expect a 

proportionate decrease in the rule’s 

benefits for participating children. The 

net effect of this assumption would be 

to decrease the cost of implementing the 

final rule by $1.4 billion. 

g. Lower Rate of Increase in Labor Costs 

Than Food Costs 

Our primary cost estimate assumes 

that the ratio of labor to food costs will 

remain fixed at the ratio observed in the 

SLBCS–II. Because we estimate a 

substantial increase in school food 

costs, our fixed labor to food cost 

assumption leads to a substantial 

increase in labor costs. 

Some increase in labor costs is likely. 

Schools may find it necessary to prepare 

more meals on site to incorporate added 

vegetables and whole grains, and to 

reduce levels of sodium and fat. In 

addition, schools are likely to incur 

additional expense to train foodservice 

workers on the new meal requirements. 

However, commercial suppliers can be 

expected to develop and introduce 

healthier products for the school market 

ahead of implementation of a final rule; 

other products may be introduced after 

implementation. Schools may find that 

new training replaces some training 

planned in existing budgets. 

It is also uncertain that more 

expensive foods are proportionately 

more expensive to prepare than less 

expensive foods. Long-term stability in 

the relationship between food and labor 

costs is unremarkable if the primary 

factor driving both is an increase in the 

number of participants and meals 

served. Though the limited data 

available shows that this ratio remained 

stable between SY 1992–1993 and SY 

2005–2006—a period that included 

program changes under the School 

Meals Initiative—there are reasons to 

suspect that this relationship may not 

hold in response to a sudden increase in 

food costs unrelated to the number 

meals served. 

Table 14, Section G models an 

increase in labor costs that is 75 percent 

of the level in our primary estimate, to 

reflect a shift in the balance between 

food and labor costs under the proposed 

rule. This assumption would result in 

an $834 million decrease of our primary 

cost estimate of implementing the 

proposed rule. 

h. Extent of School Compliance With 

New Requirements 

Results from SNDA–III indicate that 

most schools do not fully comply with 

the current nutrition requirements for 

meals served and reimbursed through 

the school lunch and breakfast 

programs. Although a large majority of 

schools (more than 80 percent) served 

lunches in SY 2004–2005 that met 

requirements for protein, calcium, and 

iron, and more than 70 percent served 

lunches that met requirements for 

vitamins A and C, fewer than half met 

minimum calorie requirements, just 30 

percent met the standard for saturated 

fat, and only 21 percent met the 

standard for total fat. Overall, while 

most schools met most of the 

requirements for a nutritious school 

meal, just 7 percent of schools served 

reimbursable lunches that met every 

requirement.54

Despite the challenge of meeting these 

requirements, it is relatively uncommon 

for schools to serve meals for Federal 

reimbursement that lack required food 

group or meal components. FNS’ study 

of improper payments in the school 

meal programs found no point-of-sale 

error in identifying reimbursable 

lunches at 45 percent of schools in SY 

2005–2006, and high error rates (more 

than 20 percent) in just 2 percent of 

schools. These errors were somewhat 

more prevalent in breakfast service, but 

still far below the level of 

noncompliance with nutrient 

standards.55

Taken together, these results indicate 

that schools make a relatively successful 

effort to comply with food group and 

meal component requirements, but 

serve too many high fat options in 

satisfaction of those requirements. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2533 

The proposed rule is intended to 

facilitate meeting most micro- and 

macronutrient targets by focusing on a 

set of food group requirements. This 

plays to the strengths of the current 

system which tends to produce meals 

that satisfy food item or meal 

component requirements, but is less 

successful at monitoring the nutrient 

content of those foods. The cost estimate 

we developed above is the cost of 

serving more fruits and vegetables, 

substituting whole grains for refined 

grains, and limiting the fat content of 

fluid milk, as required by the proposed 

rule’s food group requirements; the 

estimate assumes, we believe 

reasonably, that schools may comply 

with those food level changes. 

Although schools are expected to 

satisfy most nutrient requirements 

through compliance with the rule’s 

proposed food group standards, IOM 

recognized the need to retain four 

separate nutrient targets for saturated 

fat, trans fat, calories, and sodium. 

While schools may have difficulty 

meeting those requirements, at least in 

the short term, they may eventually 

meet them within the same food group 

requirements that are effective on initial 

implementation of the rule. For this 

reason, we believe that less than full 

compliance with these four nutrient 

standards offers little cost savings to 

schools. 

We estimate that a committed effort 

by schools to serve meals consistent 

with the proposed rule’s food-based 

requirements may increase costs as 

summarized in Table 6. Nevertheless, it 

remains possible that some schools may 

find it operationally difficult, or too 

costly, to prepare and serve meals that 

satisfy the new food group and 

subgroup requirements of the rule. If 

some schools fall short of the proposed 

food group requirements in the initial 

years after implementation by not 

serving enough of certain foods, the 

aggregate cost of the rule may be lower 

than estimated. 

The nature of noncompliance with the 

proposed rule, if observed, is likely to 

resemble compliance with current 

standards as illustrated by SNDA–III. 

That is, most schools can be expected to 

work toward and achieve compliance 

with most provisions of the rule. We 

would expect some variation across 

schools in the degree to which 

individual food group requirements are 

met, given differences in current menus, 

what students in different schools are 

accustomed to eating, and variations in 

school policy on a la carte foods, other 

non-program choices, implementation 

of offer versus serve, etc. But it is also 

possible that some schools may be 

unable to make any changes to current 

menus, at least initially. Those schools’ 

compliance with the proposed rule may 

depend on current differences in the 

content of school menus relative to the 

new standards. 

Table 14, Section H presents an 

estimate of the cost of the rule under the 

alternate assumption that some schools 

fail to meet the proposed rule’s food 

group requirements. This alternate 

estimate looks to SNDA–III’s schoollevel compliance rates with current 

nutrient standards to model compliance 

with proposed rule food group 

requirements. Specifically, the estimate 

assumes: 

1. Initial (FY 2012 and FY 2013) 

school-level compliance with the 

proposed standard for the meat group is 

equal to the average of the observed 

school-level rates of compliance with 

the SMI standards for protein and iron, 

2. Initial school-level compliance 

with the proposed fruit and vegetable 

group standards matches the average of 

the observed school-level rates of 

compliance with SMI standards for 

vitamins A and C, 

3. Initial school-level compliance 

with the fluid milk standard equals the 

average of the observed school-level 

rates of compliance with the SMI 

standards for protein and vitamin A, 

4. Initial school-level compliance 

with the grains standard equals the 

average of the observed school-level 

rates of compliance with SMI standards 

for iron, protein, and vitamin A. 

In each case, school-level compliance 

means the percent of schools that serve 

meals that meet the current or proposed 

requirements. For schools that do not 

initially comply with a proposed food 

group standard, we assume that they 

may serve the same amount from that 

food group in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 

that they did prior to implementation of 

the rule. In that way, we assume a 

distribution of food level compliance 

rates based on actual recent 

performance. This recognizes that some 

schools are much closer to meeting 

particular food group standards than 

other schools. The alternative estimate 

assumes that these schools’ average rate 

of compliance may rise to 100 percent, 

in equal increments, over the FY 2014 

through 2016 period. 

This assumption of less than full 

compliance would reduce the five year 

cost of the rule by $743 million. 

i. Cost Attributable to Noncompliance 

With Existing Meal Requirements 

In subsection h, we point to results 

from SNDA–III that show most schools 

fall short on at least some SMI nutrient 

standards for lunch and breakfast. 

The cost estimate developed in this 

impact analysis measures the difference 

in the cost of serving meals that comply 

with the proposed rule’s requirements, 

and the current cost of serving meals 

consistent with the findings of SNDA– 

III. Note that in concept, some portion 

of that cost difference could represent 

the cost for schools to reach existing 

nutrition requirements. Arguably, any 

cost incurred to reach existing standards 

should not be considered a cost of the 

proposed rule. 

We note, however, that an assessment 

of the cost to schools of changing meals 

to achieve current nutrition 

requirements is sharply limited by a 

lack of specific relevant data . Existing 

requirements for school meals consist of 

a limited number of food item 

requirements and a range of nutrient 

standards. Most schools that do not 

meet current standards are missing one 

or more nutrient standards—most 

commonly, those for total fat, saturated 

fat, and calories. 

The proposed rule, as IOM 

recommended, moves more fully to a set 

of food-based standards—requiring 

increases in particular kinds of foods 

(such as fruits and vegetables), and 

replacement of other foods with 

different types (whole-grain versus 

refined grain products, and low fat 

versus full fat dairy). The proposed rule 

includes only four stand-alone nutrient 

requirements (for sodium, saturated fat, 

calories and trans fat). 

The estimates presented in this 

analysis address the cost of providing 

more fruits and vegetables and replacing 

some or all high refined grains with 

whole grains—changes that could be 

modeled using school food purchase 

and cost data. In contrast, many of the 

kinds of changes needed to meet current 

standards, such as changing from frying 

to baking, and replacing full-fat milk 

with lower-fat varieties, would cost 

little. And for some nutrients, relatively 

small changes may be sufficient to reach 

current standards. For example, while 

SNDA–III shows that few schools met 

current requirements for total fat and 

saturated fat at lunch, on average 

schools were relatively close to meeting 

them. So, while just 21 percent of 

schools served lunches with no more 

than 30 percent of calories from total fat, 

the mean percent of energy from total fat 

across all schools was only 33.8 percent. 

For saturated fat, just 30 percent of 

schools met the 10 percent of total 

calories standard, but the mean percent 

of calories across all schools was just 

10.9 percent. If reductions in those 

measures can be achieved with modest 

changes in menus and preparation 

methods, then the cost to meet them 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

56SNDA–III found that 78 percent of elementary 

schools and 93 percent of middle schools used OVS 

in SY 2004–2005. These percentages are the same 

for lunch and breakfast. USDA 2007, vol. I, Table 

II.11A, p. 52. 

would represent a small part of the 

overall cost of moving to the proposed 

rule’s standards. At the same time, it is 

plausible to envision changes to meet 

existing standards, for vitamins A and C 

for example, that would cost nearly as 

much as the proposed rule’s food group 

standards for fruits and vegetables. 

Second, the cost of compliance with 

existing rules relies as much on 

assumptions about student acceptance 

of certain foods and menus as it does on 

the cost per nutrient. This too can be 

illustrated with SNDA–III data. School 

compliance with current SMI standards 

is far lower in high schools than in 

elementary schools for almost all 

nutrients. Because ‘‘offer versus serve’’ 

(OVS) is required in high schools, meals 

served to high school students better 

reflect student preferences than meals 

served to elementary school students, as 

roughly one in five elementary schools 

do not use OVS.56 Given a choice, the 

SNDA data indicates that students tend 

to select foods that do not satisfy current 

nutrient standards. That does not mean 

that schools cannot offer a mix of foods 

that students accept, but it may take a 

more comprehensive and costly change 

in school menus to gain that acceptance. 

For these reasons, we do not know the 

likely order of magnitude of the 

estimated cost to reach current 

standards. 

Table 14 below assumes that State 

administrative costs are not impacted by 

any of the alternate assumptions (a–h) 

listed above. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2535 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

C. Administrative Impact 

1. School Food Authorities (SFA) 

An initial increase in administrative 

staff time for training and 

implementation is anticipated at the 

SFA level. Most of these impacts will be 

limited to the transition to the rule’s 

new requirements as a result of: 

• Training staff on the required 

components of reimbursable lunches 

and breakfasts; 

• Changes to menus and portion size 

may necessitate revisions to menus and 

recipes currently used by SFAs; 

• Changes to food purchasing and 

commodity food use (for example, 

increasing purchases for fresh fruit and 

vegetables, whole grain products, and 

lower sodium products), as well as 

changes in the methods of preparation 

of food, may be necessary for many 

schools; 

• Changes in SFA financial structure, 

as SFAs may need to review finances in 

order to determine how to deal with any 

cost changes associated with the 

proposed requirements; 

• Forging new relationships with 

local farmers to supply fresh produce 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.015</GPH>
2536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

57FNS estimated in 1994 that extending the SFA 

review cycle from four to five years would decrease 

costs associated with this effort by 20 percent. (June 

10, 1994, Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 111, 

p. 30234) A similar, but opposite, effect might be 

expected from shortening the cycle from five to 

three years. 

appealing to the tastes of school 

children; and 

• Modifying a la carte foods and other 

foods at school to maintain NSLP and 

SBP participation rates. 

The proposed rule also increases the 

length of State reviews of SFAs through 

the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) by 

incorporating the requirements of 

School Meals Initiative (SMI) reviews, 

and increases their frequency to once 

every three years. SFAs that previously 

held separate CREs and SMIs may 

experience a decrease in burden, 

because they will undergo just one CRE 

every three years, rather than two 

reviews (one CRE and one SMI) every 

five years. 

The proposed rule incorporates the 

provision of training and technical 

assistance by SAs to the SFAs. SFAs 

must, in turn, adjust their current 

training agenda to include the new 

requirements, as no funding has been 

provided in the proposed rule to 

accommodate new training. 

FNS expects these additional burdens 

on SFA staff time and budgets may be 

offset by other benefits. For instance, 

new age/grade groupings would require 

school districts to offer different portion 

sizes instead of the same portions to all 

ages/grades. While this could be an 

additional burden to some SFAs, it 

could also reduce plate waste with use 

of more appropriate age/grade 

groupings. Moreover, it is expected that, 

as food service workers gain experience 

and become comfortable with the new 

requirements, administrative efforts 

associated with implementation may 

decline. Therefore, although an initial 

administrative impact is anticipated, 

FNS does not expect any significant 

long-term increase in administrative 

burden. 

2. State Agencies 

State Child Nutrition Agencies (SAs) 

play a key role in the implementation of 

school meal programs through their 

agreements and partnership with local 

SFAs. FNS anticipates that SAs that 

administer the school meals programs 

will work closely with SFAs to meet the 

requirements of the proposed rules, and 

to remove barriers that may hinder 

compliance. 

Many changes associated with 

implementation of the proposed rule 

may result in an increased burden and 

additional required level of effort from 

States, such as: 

• Training and technical assistance: 

SAs may provide training and technical 

assistance to SFAs on new calorie and 

meal pattern requirements, age/grade 

groupings, and revised nutrient 

requirements. Moving to a single, foodbased menu planning system may 

simplify the meal service for some 

schools and will likely streamline the 

meal planning process, but may require 

initial training to accomplish. 

Although SAs may meet most of this 

demand by modifying current training 

and technical assistance efforts, we 

recognize that SAs may incur additional 

costs assisting SFAs with the transition 

to the proposed requirements. Our cost 

estimate provides for an additional 80 

hours per SA in each of fiscal years 

2012 and 2013, for a total of $0.2 

million. 

• Systems assistance: SAs may assist 

SFAs with any changes in the meal 

planning process occurring as a result of 

this rule. This is included in our $0.2 

million estimate for training and 

technical assistance. 

• Food procurement and preparation: 

More fruits, vegetables, whole grains, 

and foods that are lower in sodium may 

be necessary to align meals with the 

proposed meal patterns. SAs may also 

review SFA contracts with food service 

management companies (FSMCs). We 

have not estimated this cost, but expect 

that it may be small. 

• Monitoring and compliance: SAs 

may be required to conduct CREs more 

frequently, once every 3 years for each 

SFA; nutrient analysis will be required 

for all SFAs and will become an 

additional component of each CRE 

(although separate SMIs will be 

eliminated); nutrient-based menus will 

be eliminated and only food-based 

menu planning will be permitted; 

menus will be reviewed from a twoweek period preceding the review date; 

and a breakfast meal will be reviewed as 

part of each CRE.57

SAs are currently required to conduct 

a CRE for each SFA once every 5 years; 

to conduct a nutrient analysis via SMI 

review for only those SFAs with foodbased menu planning systems (although 

approximately 30 percent of these SFAs 

elect to conduct the nutrient analysis 

themselves); to review menus from a 

one-week period preceding the review 

date; and to review a breakfast meal 

only in the case of a follow-up CRE 

(which is only conducted in those cases 

in which problems are noted in the 

initial CRE). Total costs for each SA to 

complete a CRE include costs for staff 

labor, travel (including transportation, 

accommodations, and meals/incidental 

expenses), and possible printing costs 

for those SAs that provide CRE results 

to SFAs and FNS in hard copy rather 

than electronically. 

Limited discussion with a small 

number of SA and FNS Regional Office 

officials suggest that a typical CRE or 

SMI review costs about $2,000 in 2010, 

with about half of that cost used for staff 

travel. Because travel is a largely fixed 

cost, SAs that previously conducted 

separate CRE and SMI reviews should 

realize some savings once SMIs are 

ended and the nutrient analysis is made 

part of the CRE. That may help offset 

some of the cost of increased CRE 

frequency. A mid-sized State that now 

conducts 100 CRE reviews might incur 

annual expenses of $200,000. Under the 

proposed rule, that SA could expect to 

conduct 2⁄3 more CRE reviews, or 

roughly 167 per year. If we assume 

conservatively that the SA realizes no 

savings from elimination of SMI 

reviews, its review costs would increase 

by $134,000 per year—an upper-bound 

estimate. If all SAs incurred this same 

expense, the total cost would be roughly 

$8 million per year by FY 2013. 

3. USDA/FNS 

FNS will assist State Agencies by 

providing nutrition education, training, 

guidance, and technical assistance to 

facilitate their work with local school 

food professionals. This may include 

developing training standards, 

materials, updated measures for 

nutrition analysis, and revisions to the 

food buying guide. 

While we expect a small increase in 

administrative burden for FNS under 

the proposed rule because of the need 

to provide additional training and 

technical assistance to SAs, and to 

support their role in the CRE process, 

this may largely be met by adapting 

existing efforts to the new requirements. 

D. Food Service Equipment 

Changes in meal pattern requirements 

as a result of the proposed rule may 

cause some SFAs to require different, or 

additional, equipment than that which 

they currently possess. For example, 

some SFAs may need to replace fryers 

with ovens or steamers. In FY 2009, 

FNS solicited requests from SFAs for 

food service equipment grants, awarding 

$100 million in 2009 American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

Equipment Grants and an additional $25 

million in one-time funds included in 

the FY 2010 Agriculture Appropriations 

Act. In response to its solicitation, FNS 

received a total of approximately $600 

million in grant requests from SFAs. 

The strong response to these grant 

programs indicates that schools could 

make productive use of an even greater 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2537 

58USDA 2008, p. xii. 

59The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

increases the Federal subsidy for reimbursable 

school lunches by 6 cents on implementation of 

final regulations to update the school meal patterns. 

All SFAs in compliance with the regulations would 

be eligible for the increased reimbursement. Further 

guidance on how SFAs may fulfill this legislative 

Continued 

investment in kitchen equipment. 

However, much of that demand is 

associated with the routine need to 

replace equipment that is nearing the 

end of its useful life—a cost that is 

appropriately covered by USDA meal 

reimbursements and other sources of 

food service revenue. Although some 

schools may need additional upgrades 

to prepare meals that meet the proposed 

rule’s standards, we do not have the 

data necessary to assess that need or to 

estimate the associated cost. The $125 

million in kitchen equipment grants 

distributed to schools through ARRA 

funds and the FY 2010 appropriation 

should have addressed much of the 

most pressing need. For these reasons, 

we do not include additional 

incremental equipment costs as a result 

of the proposed rule in our estimate. 

E. Implementation of Proposed Rule— 

SFA Resources 

We estimate that the proposed rule 

may raise the average cost of producing 

and serving school lunches by almost 7 

cents and school breakfasts by 37 cents 

on initial implementation. By FY 2015, 

when the 100 percent whole grain rich 

requirement takes effect, the cost per 

lunch may be 14 cents higher than our 

baseline estimate; the cost per breakfast 

may be 50 cents higher than our 

baseline. 

Not all schools will face the same cost 

changes. Schools with menus that 

already emphasize fruits, non-starchy 

vegetables, and whole grains may need 

to make fewer changes, and the costs of 

implementation in those schools may be 

lower than average. Because the permeal costs of complying with the 

proposed requirements are much higher 

for breakfast than for lunch, the overall 

costs of implementation in schools that 

serve more school breakfasts relative to 

lunches may be higher than the costs 

faced by schools that do not serve 

breakfast. 

SFAs have a variety of funding 

sources used to cover the cost of 

preparing and serving school meals. The 

SLBCS–II found that about half of 

average SFA revenues are provided by 

Federal reimbursements (cash and 

donated foods), about one-quarter by 

payments from participating families, 

and the remainder from other sources 

(See Figure 3). 

Covering the increased costs 

estimated to implement the proposed 

rule may be challenging for many 

schools. However, some schools are 

already making substantial progress 

using available resources. USDA’s 

HealthierUS Schools Challenge 

(HUSSC) recognizes elementary schools 

that meet voluntary school meal and 

physical activity standards. HUSSC 

school meal standards exceed NSLP 

requirements on several levels, 

including requirements for a variety of 

vegetables each week, including dark 

green and orange vegetables and 

legumes; a variety of whole fruits, and 

limits on fruit juice; and whole grain 

and low fat milk requirements. USDA 

has certified more than 840 HUSSC 

schools since 2004. HUSSC schools 

have demonstrated an ability to operate 

cost-effective school meals programs 

that emphasize many of the same foods 

required by the proposed rule. These 

schools receive no financial assistance 

from USDA beyond the meal 

reimbursements and USDA Foods 

available to other schools that 

participate in the Federal school lunch 

and breakfast programs. 

Most schools will have a number of 

options and flexibilities within available 

revenue streams and operational 

approaches that can help to balance 

costs and resources. 

Federal Reimbursements: As noted 

above, about half of all SFA revenues 

are from Federal reimbursements. These 

payments are adjusted annually for 

changes in food and labor costs by 

statute.59 SLBCS–II found that in 2005– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.016</GPH>
2538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

requirement will be forthcoming and may be 

addressed in a subsequent rulemaking. 

60The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 

requires SFAs to gradually raise non-Federal 

revenues for reimbursable paid lunches, if 

necessary, until those revenues equaled the 

difference between the Federal reimbursements for 

free and paid lunches, to address the disparity in 

SFA revenue between paid and free lunches 

discussed above. Raising paid meal prices 

represents one approach by which schools may 

derive increased revenue, but is not a requirement 

of the law. Further guidance on how SFAs may 

fulfill this legislative requirement will be 

forthcoming and may be addressed in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

61For breakfast, the study estimated that 

projected participation rates ‘‘were higher in schools 

that offered a greater percentage of calories from fat 

in the SBP breakfast; however, these differences 

were not statistically significant at conventional 

levels.’’ USDA 2007, vol. II, pp. 113 and 127. 

62USDA 2007, vol. II, pp. 116–117, 123–124. 

63This relationship between price and 

participation applies to prices in the range of $1.50 

to $2.00 in SY 2004–2005 dollars. A much bigger 

price increase might trigger a bigger reduction in 

participation. 

06, for most reimbursable lunches and 

in most SFAs, reported lunch 

production costs were less than the 

Federal free lunch subsidy by a small 

amount, with the difference greatest in 

SFAs that produce more meals, 

resulting in a lower per-meal cost. 

Student Payments: School districts 

have the discretion to set student 

payments for ‘‘paid meals’’ and a` la carte 

foods at levels of their choosing, so long 

as the resulting revenues are paid into 

the non-profit school food service 

account. Some currently set prices for 

these meals and foods at levels that do 

not cover the full cost of production, 

with Federal payments for free and 

reduced-price meals covering the 

difference. Schools will likely face 

additional incentives to adjust their 

pricing policies so that adequate 

revenue is generated to cover the cost of 

production.60

State and Local Funds: A limited but 

nonetheless substantial portion of meal 

production costs are paid from State and 

local government sources. The 

contributions of these entities may need 

to increase to cover costs. 

Operational Changes: Like other 

service businesses, schools may need to 

consider changes to their operations to 

increase efficiency and meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule. As 

noted above, several hundred HUSSC 

schools have demonstrated an ability to 

operate cost-effective school meals 

programs that meet many of the 

proposed rule’s requirements. These 

schools may offer models for others as 

implementation moves forward. 

F. Impact on Participation 

As noted in Table 12, the cost 

estimate in this analysis assumes no net 

change in student participation 

following introduction of the rule’s new 

meal pattern requirements. This 

assumption reflects uncertainties in a 

number of areas, including how schools 

will reflect the new requirements in 

menus, the acceptance of those changes 

by students, and potential changes in 

prices for reimbursable paid meals to 

provide additional revenue. These 

factors are discussed below. 

1. Acceptance of Meals 

Any revision to the content of school 

meals or the method of preparation may 

have an effect on the acceptance of 

school meals. Concerns are often raised 

that students may react negatively to 

changes designed to improve nutrition. 

USDA launched the School Meals 

Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI) in 

1995 to help schools improve the 

nutritional quality of NSLP and SBP 

meals. The SMI offers an opportunity to 

examine how students react to 

substantial changes in school meal 

patterns. 

As a result of the SMI many school 

food service directors reported making 

changes in procurement and preparation 

practices (Abraham, 2002). For example, 

they reported increased purchases of 

low-fat/reduced-fat foods (81 percent) 

and fresh fruits and vegetables (75 

percent). The majority reported no 

change in food waste. However, to the 

extent that there was change in the 

amount of food wasted, more 

respondents reported a reduction rather 

than an increase in food waste (with the 

exception of cooked vegetables). School 

food service directors report that the 

SMI has generally had a neutral-topositive impact on program 

performance. 

SNDA–III found that ‘‘[c]haracteristics 

of NSLP lunches offered, including 

percent of calories from fat, whether 

dessert or French fries were frequently 

offered, and average number of fresh 

fruits and vegetables offered per day, 

were generally not significantly 

associated with NSLP participation.’’ 61

This suggests that changes in meal 

patterns that enhance nutrition can be 

well received by students. Furthermore, 

the increased emphasis on a healthy 

school nutrition environment in recent 

years, and greater awareness of the 

importance of healthy eating habits in 

schools, may help to support student 

acceptance of changes in program 

meals. 

There is also a strong and growing 

school nutrition effort and infrastructure 

already in place. For example, Team 

Nutrition is an FNS initiative to support 

healthier meals through training and 

technical assistance for food service, 

nutrition education for children and 

their caregivers, and school and 

community support for healthy eating 

and physical activity. Similarly, in 2004 

Congress required school districts to 

establish local wellness policies; 

through these policies, schools have 

made changes to their school nutrition 

environments, improved the quality of 

foods offered, and students are provided 

with more nutritious, healthy choices. 

In the context of these initiatives, 

implementation of the proposed rule 

will not be an isolated endeavor, but 

rather may build upon a range of 

ongoing local, State and Federal efforts 

to promote children’s nutrition and 

health. 

2. Impact of Price on Participation 

FNS estimates that the average cost of 

preparing school meals may increase by 

12 percent. SFAs may raise student 

prices for reimbursable paid meals to 

compensate for some of this increase in 

cost. All else being equal, increased 

paid meal prices may reduce NSLP 

paid-meal participation. Mathematica®, 

Inc. modeled the effect of paid meal 

prices on student participation as part of 

the SNDA–III study.62 All else equal, 

students who were not income-eligible 

for free or reduced-price meals were less 

likely to participate in the program 

when the full price of the meals was 

higher. For lunch, the model estimates 

a 0.11 percent decrease in participation 

for each 1 cent increase in paid lunch 

prices.63 For breakfast, the model 

estimates a 0.12 percent decrease in 

participation per 1 cent increase in 

price. 

The model’s predicted student 

participation rate was 54 percent in 

schools that charged $2.00 for an NSLP 

lunch, compared to 59 percent in 

schools that charged $1.50. The study 

also predicts lower breakfast 

participation in schools that charged 

higher prices. Predicted participation 

was 10.3 percent in schools that charged 

$0.70 for an SBP breakfast versus 7.2 

percent in schools that charged $1.00. 

Since meals meeting the new 

requirements will be improved in 

nutritional content it is not clear how 

this factor would balance against the 

effects of higher meal prices. Although 

price changes may be a necessary option 

for some SFAs, FNS expects that efforts 

designed to maintain participation 

would be concurrently implemented. 

G. Benefits 

As noted in the preamble to this 

proposed rule, NSLA requires that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2539 

64 IOM 2009, pp. 49–53. 

65See, for example, Smith-Spangler, 2010; 

Bibbins-Domingo, 2010. 

66Bibbins-Domingo, 2010b. 

67The minimum calorie level for a lunch served 

to Grade 7 students is 825 calories under current 

standards (Grades 7–12); this would change to a 

range of 600 calories minimum, 700 calories 

maximum under the new standards (Grades 6–8). 

68 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 

p. B1–2. 

69 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 

pp. B1–2, B1–3. 

70 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 

p. B3–6. 

71Ogden et al., 2010. 

72Trasande et al., 2009. 

73Whitaker et al., 1997; Serdula et al., May 1993. 

74Finkelstein et al., 2009. 

schools serving lunches and breakfasts 

under its program authority ensure that 

those meals are consistent with the 

goals of the most recent Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and the 

Dietary Reference Intakes. The proposed 

rule, by updating program regulations 

consistent with Dietary Guidelines goals 

and aligning the regulations with the 

requirements placed on schools under 

the statute, will ensure that school meal 

nutrition requirements reflect current 

nutrition science, increase the 

availability of key food groups, better 

meet the nutritional needs of children, 

and foster healthy eating habits. 

In so doing, it also provides a clear 

means of meeting the statutory 

requirements through a food-based meal 

pattern designed with the particular 

circumstances and challenges of school 

food service in mind, to ensure that it 

is feasible for school foodservice 

operators and does not jeopardize 

student and school participation in the 

meal programs. A related benefit of the 

proposal is that it simplifies meal 

requirements to create a single, foodbased approach to meal planning. This 

approach helps to simplify menu 

planning and monitoring, and 

streamline training and technical 

assistance needs. 

Once implemented by schools, USDA 

projects that this rule will change the 

types and quantities of foods prepared, 

offered and served through the school 

meals programs (the sources of the costs 

described in this analysis). The 

proposed rule is expected to result in (1) 

increased servings of fruits and 

vegetables, (2) replacement of refinedgrain foods with whole-grain rich foods, 

and (3) replacement of higher-fat dairy 

products with low-fat varieties. As 

documented in the IOM 

recommendations, each of these changes 

corresponds to an inconsistency 

between the typical diets of school-aged 

children in the United States and the 

Dietary Guidelines/MyPyramid 

recommendations. In particular, the 

report cited an analysis of NHANES 

1999–2002 data that showed that: 

• Total vegetable intake was only 

about 40 percent of the MyPyramid 

levels, with intake of dark green and 

orange vegetables less than 20 percent of 

MyPyramid levels. 

• Total fruit intake was about 80 

percent of the MyPyramid levels for 

children ages 5–8, with far lower levels 

for older children. 

• Intake of whole grains was less than 

one-quarter of MyPyramid levels, 

although total grain intake was at or 

above MyPyramid levels. 

• Intake of dairy products varied by 

age, with the intakes of the youngest 

children exceeding MyPyramid levels, 

while those of older children were 

below those levels. However, most dairy 

consumed contained 2 percent or more 

milk fat, while the Dietary Guidelines 

recommend fat-free or low-fat dairy 

products.64

In addition, the rule would make 

significant changes to the level of 

sodium in school meals over time. 

Research suggests that modest 

population-wide reductions in dietary 

salt could substantially reduce 

cardiovascular events and medical 

costs.65 More specifically, a forthcoming 

study suggests that reducing dietary salt 

in adolescents could yield substantial 

health benefits by decreasing the 

number of teenagers with hypertension 

and the rates of cardiovascular disease 

and death as these teenagers reach 

young and middle age adulthood.66

The rule also makes substantial 

changes in the calorie targets for meals 

that are designed to promote healthful 

energy balance for the children served 

by these programs. For the first time, the 

rule sets maximum as well as minimum 

calorie targets, and creates a finer 

gradation of calorie levels by age. As a 

result, minimum calorie requirements 

for some groups are reduced by as much 

as 225 calories per lunch.67

Implemented consistent with other 

requirements that ensure that lunches 

provide appropriate nutrient content, 

these changes in calorie levels can help 

to reduce the energy imbalance that 

contributes to obesity among the 

Nation’s children, without 

compromising nutrition to support 

healthy growth and development. 

This approach is fully consistent with 

the recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans. Recognizing 

that the Dietary Guidelines apply to a 

total diet, rather than a specific meal or 

portion of an individual’s consumption, 

the intention of the proposed rule is to 

make changes to school meals nutrition 

requirements to promote diets more 

consistent with the Guidelines among 

program participants. Such diets, in 

turn, are useful behavioral contributors 

to health and well-being. As the report 

of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee notes, ‘‘evidence is 

accumulating that selecting diets that 

comply with the Guidelines reduces the 

risk of chronic disease and promotes 

health.’’ 68 The report describes and 

synthesizes the evidence linking diet 

and different chronic disease risks, 

including cardiovascular disease and 

blood pressure, as well as the effects of 

dietary patterns on total mortality. 

Children are a subpopulation of 

particular focus for the Committee; the 

report emphasizes the increasing 

common evidence of chronic disease 

risk factors, such as glucose intolerance 

and hypertension, among children, and 

explains that ‘‘[e]vidence documents the 

importance of optimal nutrition starting 

during the fetal period through 

childhood and adolescence because this 

has a substantial influence on the risk 

of chronic disease with age.’’ 69

In response, the report notes 

improvements in food at schools as a 

critical strategy to prevent obesity, and 

related health risks, among children. 

Indeed, the Committee recommends 

‘‘[i]mprov[ing] foods sold and served in 

schools, including school breakfast, 

lunch, and after-school meals and 

competitive foods so that they meet the 

recommendations of the IOM report on 

school meals (IOM, 2009) and the key 

findings of the 2010 DGAC. This 

includes all age groups of children, from 

preschool through high school.’’ 70

The linkage between poor diets and 

health problems such as childhood 

obesity are also a matter of particular 

policy concern, given their significant 

social costs. One in every three children 

(31.7 percent) ages 2–19 is overweight 

or obese.71 Along with the effects on our 

children’s health, childhood overweight 

and obesity imposes substantial 

economic costs, and the epidemic is 

associated with an estimated $3 billion 

in direct medical costs.72 Perhaps more 

significantly, obese children and 

adolescents are more likely to become 

obese as adults.73 In 2008, medical 

spending on adults that was attributed 

to obesity increased to an estimated 

$147 billion.74

Because of the complexity of factors 

that contribute both to overall food 

consumption and to obesity, we are not 

able to define a level of disease or cost 

reduction that is attributable to the 

changes in meals expected to result 

from implementation of the rule. As the 

rule is projected to make substantial 

improvements in meals served to more 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

75Section 9(a)(4) and 9(f)(1) of the NSLA (42 

U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) and (f)(1)). 

76See the preamble to the proposed rule for a 

more thorough discussion of this issue. 

77Section III.B.5 examines the effect of an 

arbitrary two percent drop in student participation 

on the cost of preparing school meals, and on 

Federal reimbursements to schools. 

than half of all school-aged children on 

an average school day, we judge that the 

likelihood is reasonable that the benefits 

of the rule exceed the costs, and that the 

proposal thus represents a cost-effective 

means of conforming NSLP and SBP 

regulations to the statutory requirements 

for school meals. 

There are other, corollary benefits to 

improvement in school meals that are 

worthy of note. The changes could 

increase confidence by parents and 

families in the nutritional quality of 

school meals, which may encourage 

more families to opt for them as a 

reliable source of nutritious food for 

their children. Improved school meals 

can reinforce school-based nutrition 

education and promotion efforts and 

contribute significantly to the overall 

effectiveness of the school nutrition 

environment in promoting healthful 

food and physical activity choices. 

Finally, the new requirements provide a 

clearer alignment between Federal 

program benefits and national nutrition 

policy, which can help to reinforce 

overall understanding of the linkages 

between diet and health. 

IV. Alternatives 

In response to NSLA Section 9(a)(4) 

amended into law in 2004, USDA 

contracted with IOM to assemble an 

expert panel to undertake a review of 

the nutritional needs of children, the 

recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines, and IOM’s Dietary Reference 

Intakes. USDA asked IOM to develop 

recommendations for updating NSLP 

and SBP meal patterns and nutrition 

requirements based on that review of 

need and nutrition science, with 

consideration given to operational 

feasibility and cost. 

The USDA contract with IOM called 

for the creation of a panel with 

representatives from the fields of public 

health, epidemiology, pediatrics, child 

nutrition and child nutrition behavior, 

statistics, and economics. The contract 

also called for representatives with 

knowledge of cultural differences in 

food preference and eating habits, 

experience in menu planning, and 

experience in managing and operating a 

school lunch and breakfast program. 

IOM held workshops at which the panel 

heard presentations from invited 

speakers, and solicited public input. 

The panel also accepted public 

comment on its planned approach to the 

project. 

The process undertaken by IOM was 

designed to consider different 

perspectives and competing priorities. 

The panel necessarily weighed the 

merits of alternatives as it developed a 

preferred option. USDA’s commitment 

was to implement IOM’s 

recommendations where feasible. This 

commitment is driven by the statutory 

requirement that schools serve meals 

that are consistent with the goals of the 

Dietary Guidelines.75

We did not consider alternatives that 

depart significantly from IOM’s 

recommendations and cannot satisfy 

USDA’s statutory obligation. 

Nevertheless, the proposed rule makes a 

few small changes to IOM’s 

recommendations. In addition, the rule 

contains a handful of provisions that are 

not addressed by IOM. These proposed 

rule provisions are summarized below. 

The final alternative discussed in this 

section is to retain the status quo. 

a. Whole Grains 

Proposed rule: Within two years of 

implementation of a final rule all grains 

offered to students must be whole grain 

rich (a minimum whole grain content of 

51 percent). 

IOM alternative: Within three years of 

implementation, the whole grain 

content of grain products offered to 

students must average at least 50 

percent. 

The proposed rule aligns the dates of 

the whole grain transition with the first 

intermediate sodium target for ease of 

program operation. The IOM alternative 

introduces additional administrative 

disruption, and delays the benefits of 

the stronger whole grain requirement by 

one year. That delay, however, also 

postpones the added cost of the stronger 

requirement. The alternative would 

reduce the five year cost of the proposed 

rule by an estimated $510 million. 

b. Sodium Targets 

Proposed rule: Reduce sodium 

content of school meals to the levels 

specified by IOM within ten years of a 

final rule. Set three intermediate sodium 

targets, 2 years, 4 years, and 10 years 

after implementation of a final rule. 

IOM alternative: Reach sodium targets 

by 2020. Set intermediate targets every 

2 years. 

Given the time necessary to publish 

proposed and final rules, reaching 

IOM’s recommended sodium target by 

2020 would leave relatively little time 

for phased implementation. The 

proposed rule’s 10-year schedule is 

intended to win greater student 

acceptance. It also allows industry and 

schools added time to reformulate their 

products and school recipes between 

intermediate target dates. A rapid 

reduction in the sodium content of 

school meals would likely reduce 

participation in the lunch and breakfast 

programs, and thus undermine the goal 

of improved student nutrition.76 Added 

time may also allow the market to 

respond to increased demand for lower 

sodium foods, reducing upward 

pressure on prices and the costs of 

compliance with the rule. We have not 

quantified these risks to student 

participation or food prices.77

c. Offer Versus Serve at Breakfast 

Proposed rule: Students may decline 

one item at breakfast, but they must take 

at least one fruit or fruit juice or nonstarchy vegetable. 

IOM alternative: Students may 

decline one item at breakfast, but they 

must take at least one fruit or fruit juice. 

The proposed rule recognizes that 

some schools offer vegetables at 

breakfast. The cost effects of this change 

are minimal. 

d. Require Schools To Identify 

Reimbursable Meals 

Proposed rule: Schools are required to 

identify the components of the day’s 

reimbursable meals at or near the start 

of the serving line. 

Alternative: Schools are not required 

to identify the components of the day’s 

reimbursable meals. 

This provision is intended to help 

students select a reimbursable meal and 

avoid a la carte charges. The provision 

is also meant to educate students on the 

content of a balanced, healthy meal. The 

school revenue and cost effects of this 

provision are small. 

e. Crediting of Specific Foods 

Proposed rule: Schools may credit 

tomato paste based on volume served. 

Schools may not credit snack-type fruit 

or vegetable products (such as fruit 

leather), nor may they credit formulated 

grain-fruit products. 

Alternative: Schools can only credit 

tomato paste based on its calculated 

whole tomato equivalent. Schools may 

credit snack-type fruit and vegetable 

products and formulated grain-fruit 

products. 

Allowing schools to credit tomato 

paste based on volume served is 

consistent with the treatment of similar 

products. Disallowing the crediting of 

snack-type fruit or vegetable products 

reinforces the Dietary Guidelines 

emphasis on whole fruits and 

vegetables, and supports nutrition 

education to the extent that these foods 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2541 

78 IOM 2009, p. 2. 

79Section 9(a)(4) and 9(f)(1) of the NSLA (42 

U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) and (f)(1)). 

are not recognized by children as fruits 

or vegetables. In addition, the crediting 

of certain fruit snacks was based on an 

FDA standard of identity for canned 

fruit nectar which has been removed 

from the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The crediting of formulated grain-fruit 

products is disallowed because those 

products typically contain high levels of 

fortification, rather than naturally 

occurring nutrients, and are high in 

sugar and fat. The effect of these 

changes on school costs is minimal. 

f. Low Fat Flavored Milk 

Proposed rule: Low fat milk cannot be 

flavored. Only fat-free milk can be 

flavored. 

Alternative: Schools may allow 

flavored low fat milk. 

The proposed rule is based on the 

IOM recommendation. FNS considered 

allowing schools to offer flavored low 

fat milk if they could stay within the 

proposed rule’s calorie ranges. This was 

potentially achievable since the calorie 

difference between plain low fat milk 

and flavored low fat milk is modest 

(about 30 calories). We ultimately 

rejected this alternative; allowing only 

fat-free milk to be offered in flavored 

form is intended to reduce students’ fat 

intakes. The difference in cost between 

the proposed rule and the alternative is 

very small (fat-free milk is less 

expensive than low fat milk). 

g. Phase-In Implementation of IOM 

Recommendations 

Proposed rule: All schools are 

expected to implement the proposed 

rule beginning with school year 2012– 

2013, with final whole grain 

requirements implemented by the 

school year 2014–2015. 

Alternative: Phase-in implementation 

of the rule based on LEA size. LEAs 

with: 

• More than 25,000 students would 

implement by SY 2012–2013; 

• 10,000 to 25,000 students would 

implement by SY 2013–2014; and 

• Less than 10,000 schools would 

implement by SY 2014–2015. 

Final whole grain requirements in 

effect two years after implementation in 

each cohort of LEAs. 

Schools vary in the extent to which 

they meet current nutrition 

requirements for reimbursable meals. 

Though most are reasonably successful 

in meeting the food group requirements 

under current rules, some schools may 

find it operationally difficult, or too 

costly, to prepare, serve, and gain 

acceptance for meals that satisfy the 

new food group and subgroup 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

There is potential concern that the 

magnitude of the changes required 

could make it difficult for some schools 

to meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule by SY 2012–2013. 

As an alternative, USDA could 

consider an approach that would phasein the requirements of the rule so that 

schools that can comply most readily do 

so early, and those for which 

compliance may be more difficult 

would have additional time. Though we 

are not aware of any evidentiary basis to 

distinguish groups of schools that may 

find it more difficult to meet the 

proposed requirements than others, we 

offer as an alternative scenario the 

phase-in schedule adopted by Congress 

for the requirement to conduct direct 

certification under Section 104 of the 

Child Nutrition and WIC 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 

108–265). This gave smaller LEAs more 

time to meet the requirements than 

larger ones. The cost of implementing 

the rule under this alternative scenario 

is shown in Table 15, below: 

TABLE 15—COST (IN MILLIONS) OF PROPOSED RULE WITH IMPLEMENTATION PHASE-IN BASED ON LEA SIZE

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 2012– 

2016 

Food Costs ............................................... $31.4 $243.3 $443.2 $805.1 $918.4 $2,441.4 

Labor Costs .............................................. 30.6 237.4 432.5 785.6 896.3 2,382.5 

State Admin ............................................. 0.1 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.6 36.9 

Total .................................................. 62.1 489.6 884.8 1,600.0 1,824.4 4,860.9 

A phase-in of the new meal standards 

would reduce estimated benefits as well 

as costs for those schools not yet 

phased-in. Participation in the school 

meals program is highest among 

elementary school students; 

participation decreases as students 

move to middle and high school (see 

Figure 4). One of the goals of USDAsponsored IOM recommendations for 

updated meal requirements was to 

‘‘foster healthy eating habits’’ through 

exposure to the school meals program.78

But, because of the decrease in 

participation among older students, the 

school meals program has only a limited 

opportunity to influence the eating 

habits of some students. Students who 

are not introduced to the proposed meal 

requirements while still in elementary 

school may not benefit at all from the 

potential positive impact of these 

changes on their diets. 

h. Do Not Implement IOM 

Recommendations 

Proposed rule: With few minor 

exceptions, discussed above, the 

proposed rule adopts IOM’s 

recommendations. 

Alternative: Do not adopt the 

recommendations, or postpone their 

implementation. 

By statute, schools are required to 

serve NSLP and SBP meals that are 

consistent with the goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines.79 Given this mandate, 

USDA contracted with IOM to review 

current meal pattern and nutrition 

requirements and recommend changes. 

IOM assembled a panel of child 

nutrition experts and school foodservice 

practitioners. That panel accepted input 

from industry, interest groups, and 

representatives of the school foodservice 

community. The panel was charged 

with recommending program changes 

that reflect Dietary Guidelines goals but 

are also operationally practical and costefficient, to the extent possible. 

Although a different review might have 

generated a different set of 

recommendations, any proposal 

consistent with Dietary Guidelines goals 

would be obligated to recommend 

increases in the amounts and varieties 

of vegetables and fruits offered to 

students, the substitution of whole 

grains for refined grains, and limits on 

the fat content of milk. These changes 

are the principal cost drivers of the IOM 

recommendations (see Table 11). 

Alternate proposals to align program 

requirements with the goals of the 

Dietary Guidelines would necessarily 

confront these same costs, and thus 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

80USDA 2007, Vol. II, pp. 39–40. 

would be unlikely to cost significantly 

less than the proposed rule. 

We did not consider alternatives that 

would move significantly away from the 

objective to align school meal patterns 

with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines. 

Such alternatives include making no 

change to program rules, or delaying 

implementation of the proposed rule. 

Both of these would reduce costs 

relative to the proposed rule. 

Taking no action would, of course, 

forfeit all of the benefits discussed in 

section III.G. Delaying implementation 

would have lesser, but still significant 

negative consequences. As noted under 

alternative g, students who are not 

introduced to the proposed meal 

requirements while still in elementary 

school may not benefit at all from 

delayed implementation of the rule. 

V. References 

Abraham, S., M. Chattopadhyay, M. 

Montgomery, D. M. Steiger, L. Daft, B. 

Wilbraham. (Abraham, 2002) The School 

Meals Initiative Implementation StudyThird Year Report. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Bibbins-Domingo K et al. (Bibbins-Domingo, 

2010) Projected effect of dietary salt 

reductions on future cardiovascular 

disease. New England Journal of 

Medicine, 2010 Feb 18;362(7):590–9. 

Epub 2010 Jan 20. 

Bibbins-Domingo K. (Bibbins-Domingo, 

2010b) Abstract 18899: Cardiovascular 

Benefits of Dietary Salt Reduction for US 

Adolescents. Presented at: American 

Heart Association Scientific Sessions 

2010; Nov. 13–17; Chicago. 

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 

Report of the Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee on the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (http:// 

www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010- 

DGACReport.htm). 

Finkelstein, E., Trogdon, J., Cohen J., Dietz, 

W. (2009). Annual Medical Spending 

Attributable to Obesity: Payer- And 

Service-Specific Estimates. Health 

Affairs, 28(5). 

Institute of Medicine (IOM 2009). School 

Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy 

Children. Washington, D.C: The National 

Academies Press. http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ 

CNP/FILES/SchoolMealsIOM.pdf. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM 2009). Nutrition 

Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading 

the Way toward Healthier Youth. 

Washington, D.C: The National 

Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/ 

openbook.php?record_id=11899. 

Maurer, K. The National Evaluation of School 

Nutrition Programs: Program Impact on 

Family Food Expenditures. The 

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 

40: August 1984, pp 448–453. 

Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M., Curtin, L., Lamb, M., 

Flegal, K. (2010). Prevalence of High 

Body Mass Index in US Children and 

Adolescents 2007–2008. Journal of 

American Medical Association, 303(3), 

242–249. 

Smith-Spangler CM et al. (2010) Population 

strategies to decrease sodium intake and 

the burden of cardiovascular disease: A 

cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of 

Internal Medicine, 2010 Apr 

20;152(8):481–7, W170–3. Epub 2010 

Mar 1. 

Serdula MK, Ivery D, Coates RJ, Freedman 

DS. Mayiamson DF. Byers T. Do obese 

children become obese adults? A review 

of the literature. Prev Med 1993;22:167– 

177. 

Trasande, L., Chatterjee, S. (2009). 

Corrigendum: The Impact of Obesity on 

Health Service Utilization and Costs in 

Childhood. Obesity, 17(9). 

Whitaker RC, Wright JA, Pepe MS, Seidel KD, 

Dietz WH. Predicting obesity in young 

adulthood from childhood and parental 

obesity. N Engl J Med 1997; 37(13):869– 

873. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service (USDA 2008). School 

Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study–II, Final 

Report, by Susan Bartlett, et al. http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ 

CNP/FILES/MealCostStudy.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service (USDA 2007). School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study–III 

by Anne Gordon, et al. http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ 

CNP/FILES/SNDAIIISummaryofFindings.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service (USDA 2007a). White 

Paper: USDA Commodities in the 

National School Lunch Program. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service (USDA 2007b). NSLP/ 

SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, 

and Certification Study—Erroneous 

Payments in the NSLP and SBP, by 

Michael Ponza, et al. http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ 

CNP/FILES/apecvol1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dietary 

Guidelines Advisory Committee (USDA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2543 

81Another small part of the difference in cost is 

our omission of items such as snack chips, drinks 

other than milk and fruit juice, condiments, and 

salad dressing; these items are served in addition 

to the foods that help satisfy the NSLP and SBP 

meal requirements. We exclude them from both the 

baseline and the proposed rule estimates under the 

assumption that they will contribute similarly to 

each estimate and will have no effect on the 

difference in cost. 

82The SNDA–III dataset was designed to allow 

the computation of take rates by food item in order 

to support a nutrient analysis of school meals. 

2004). Report of the Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee on the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2005 http:// 

www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/ 

dga2005/report/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service (USDA 2001). School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study–II by 

Mary Kay Fox, et al. http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ 

CNP/FILES/SNDAIIfind.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. The Impact of the 

School Nutrition Programs on Household 

Food Expenditures. Prepared by 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

October 30, 1987. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS 2010). The Surgeon 

General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit 

Nation. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/ 

library/obesityvision/ 

obesityvision2010.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (HHS/USDA 2005). Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 6th Edition. 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/ 

DietaryGuidelines/2005/ 

2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf. 

Wagner, B., B. Senauer, and F.C. Runge. 

(Wagner, 2007). An Empirical Analysis 

of and Policy Recommendations to 

Improve the Nutritional Quality of 

School Meals. Review of Agricultural 

Economics 29(4):672–688. 

VI. Appendix A 

The following tables detail the major steps 

in the computation of food cost estimates 

described in the main body of the impact 

analysis. The tables develop both a baseline 

food cost estimate and an estimate under the 

proposed rule. 

Note that the dollar values of our baseline 

food cost estimates are lower than the figures 

reported in the SLBCS–II. The primary 

reason that our figures differ is that we use 

SNDA–III rather than SLBCS–II for baseline 

totals of food served; we only use the 

SLBCS–II for unit prices.81 We chose SNDA– 

III as our source for food quantities because 

of its information on student take rates. In 

order to estimate the cost of the proposed 

rule, we need to take the rule’s food group 

requirements, which are expressed in terms 

of quantities that schools must offer to 

students, and estimate the quantity of food 

actually served. The take rates from SNDA– 

III allow us to do that; 82 the SLBCS–II is not 

designed to estimate take rates. Because of 

the relationship between take rates and 

quantities served, it would be inappropriate 

to mix SNDA–III take rates and SLBCS–II 

quantities. Because we use SNDA–III take 

rates to estimate the cost of serving meals 

under the proposed rule, we use SNDA–III 

quantities to estimate our baseline. 

The lower scale of our baseline food cost 

estimate compared to the SLBCS–II should 

not impact our cost estimate of the proposed 

rule. As long as the take rates are computed 

from the same source for both our baseline 

and proposed rule estimates, the estimated 

cost of an incremental change in quantities 

offered should not be biased. 

Table A–1 contains total food and labor 

cost estimates for the baseline and under the 

proposed rule. The difference is summarized 

in the shaded panel at the bottom of the 

table. That difference is the estimated cost of 

the rule, as presented in Table 6 in section 

III.A.1. 

Table A–2 shows each of the major inputs 

into our baseline cost estimate. The first two 

columns are the estimated volumes of food 

served per meal, expressed in grams, and 

weighted average prices per gram. We 

estimate the cost per meal of prepared and 

processed foods without breaking them into 

food group ingredients. Quantities of food 

served per meal are from SNDA–III; unit 

prices are from SLBCS–II. The product of 

these figures give the estimated food cost per 

school meal served. We inflate each of the 

meal components by historic and projected 

changes in food group specific prices to 

estimate per meal costs through FY 2016. 

Inflation factors, not shown in Table A–2, are 

weighted averages, computed from CPI–U 

data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 

next set of columns contains projections of 

meals served through FY 2016. Total baseline 

costs, in the five rightmost columns of Table 

A–2, are the product of the estimated costs 

per meal and FNS projections of the number 

of meals served. 

Our estimate of total cost under the 

proposed rule is developed in Tables A–3 

and A–4. Table A–3 summarizes the steps 

that we took to estimate a per-meal food cost 

in FY 2012, the year in which the rule is 

expected to take effect. Table A–4 takes that 

FY 2012 figure and projects total costs 

through FY 2016. 

Table A–3 begins with a set of food group 

quantities per meal consistent with proposed 

rule meal pattern requirements. There is a 

considerable amount of work behind these 

numbers that cannot be summarized in a 

simple table. The first three columns of 

numbers in Table A–3 represent the 

quantities of food that may be served to 

students, by grade level, on a per-meal basis. 

These figures include estimated quantities by 

food group and for prepared and processed 

foods. The process that we used to develop 

these figures is described in detail in section 

III.B.2. The key steps in that process (not 

shown in Table A–3) are summarized as 

follows: 

• Begin with the food group specific 

quantities that must be offered to students 

under the proposed rule. 

• Multiply quantities that must be offered 

by anticipated student take rates to generate 

estimated ‘‘target’’ amounts that may be 

served. 

• Assume that schools will offer the same 

amount of prepared and processed 

(‘‘combination’’) foods as they reported 

serving in SY 2004–2005 (from SNDA–III). 

Estimate the amount of creditable servings of 

vegetables, refined grains, whole grains, and 

meat or meat alternate satisfied by these 

combination foods and subtract those 

creditable amounts from our food group 

targets. 

• The differences between targeted 

servings and amounts satisfied by 

combination foods must be satisfied with 

non-combination single-item servings of 

those foods. 

Some of the food group targets satisfied by 

single-item servings are negative; see the 

refined grain figures for all grade groups, and 

the meat or meat alternate figure for middle 

schools in Table A–3. This means that the 

combination foods more than satisfy the 

serving targets for those foods. We use the 

negative numbers to compute the value of 

that excess and subtract it from our proposed 

rule cost estimate. 

Table A–3’s fourth column of numbers is 

weighted average prices per unit of food 

served for FY 2012. Note that the prices by 

food group are different for lunch and 

breakfast; we estimate different weighted 

average prices based on the different mix of 

foods served at breakfast and lunch. Our 

price figures use data from the SLBCS–II, and 

are inflated with FNS-computed factors 

constructed with CPI–U data (not shown in 

Table A–3). The product of our food group 

serving targets and estimated unit prices give 

estimated food group component costs per 

meal (the three columns under the ‘‘Weighted 

Average Price—Dollar Cost per Meal’’ 

header). To this point, all of the figures are 

specific to elementary, middle, and high 

schools. The last column in Table A–3 uses 

the percent distribution of meals served by 

grade level to estimate an overall weighted 

average cost per meal by food group. 

Table A–4 resembles Table A–2. It takes 

the weighted average prices per meal for 

combination foods and single-item foods for 

FY 2012, projects them through FY 2016 

using food group specific inflation factors, 

then multiplies those inflated per meal 

figures by FNS projections of meals served. 

The final estimated cost of meals served 

under the proposed rule is displayed in the 

last five columns of the table. 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2545 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.019</GPH>
2546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2547 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.021</GPH>
2548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2549 

83FNS 742 School Food Verification Survey, 

School Year 2009–2010. This number is 

approximate, not all SFAs are required to submit 

the 742 form. 

84 Ibid. RCCIs include but are not limited to 

juvenile detention centers, orphanages, and medical 

institutions. We do not have information on the 

number of children enrolled in these institutions. 

85FNS program data for FY 2010. 

86U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Research, Nutrition and 

Analysis, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study-III, Vol. I, 2007, p. 34 http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/CNP/ 

FILES/SNDAIII-Vol1.pdf 

87 Ibid. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Proposed Rule: Nutrition Standards in 

the National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs 

[RIN 0584–AD59] 

Agency: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

Background: The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies 

to consider the impact of their rules on 

small entities and to evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rules without unduly 

burdening small entities when the rules 

impose a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Inherent in the RFA is 

Congress’ desire to remove barriers to 

competition and encourage agencies to 

consider ways of tailoring regulations to 

the size of the regulated entities. 

The RFA does not require that 

agencies necessarily minimize a rule’s 

impact on small entities if there are 

significant legal, policy, factual, or other 

reasons for the rule’s having such an 

impact. The RFA requires only that 

agencies determine, to the extent 

feasible, the rule’s economic impact on 

small entities, explore regulatory 

alternatives for reducing any significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of such entities, and explain the 

reasons for their regulatory choices. 

Reasons That Action Is Being 

Considered 

Section 103 of the Child Nutrition and 

WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 

inserted Section 9(a)(4) into the 

National School Lunch Act requiring 

the Secretary to promulgate rules 

revising nutrition requirements, based 

on the most recent Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans, that reflect specific 

recommendations for increased 

consumption of foods and food 

ingredients offered in school meal 

programs. This proposed rule amends 

Sections 210 and 220 of the regulations 

that govern the National School Lunch 

Program (NSLP) and the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP). The proposed 

rule implements recommendations of 

the National Academies’ Institute of 

Medicine (IOM). Under contract to the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), IOM proposed changes to 

NSLP and SBP meal pattern 

requirements consistent with the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines and IOM’s Dietary 

Reference Intakes. The proposed rule 

advances the mission of the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) to provide 

children access to food, a healthful diet, 

and nutrition education in a manner 

that inspires public confidence. 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

Under Section 9(a)(4) and Section 

9(f)(1) of the NSLA, schools that 

participate in the NSLP or SBP must 

offer lunches and breakfasts that are 

consistent with the goals of the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. Current nutrition 

requirements for school lunches and 

breakfasts are based on the 1995 Dietary 

Guidelines and the 1989 RDAs. (School 

lunches and breakfasts were not 

updated when the 2000 Dietary 

Guidelines were issued because those 

recommendations did not require 

significant changes to the school meal 

patterns.) The 2005 Dietary Guidelines 

provide more prescriptive and specific 

nutrition guidance than earlier releases 

and require significant changes to 

school meal requirements. 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply 

This rule directly regulates the 55 

State education agencies and 2 State 

Departments of Agriculture (SAs) that 

operate the NSLP and SBP pursuant to 

agreements with USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS); in turn, its 

provisions apply to entities that prepare 

and provide NSLP and SBP meals to 

students. While SAs are not small 

entities under the RFA as State 

populations exceed the 50,000 threshold 

for a small government jurisdiction, 

many of the service-providing 

institutions that work with them to 

implement the program do meet 

definitions of small entities: 

• There are currently about 19,000 

School Food Authorities (SFAs) 

participating in NSLP and SBP. More 

than 99 percent of these have fewer than 

50,000 students.83 About 26 percent of 

SFAs with fewer than 50,000 students 

are private. However, private school 

SFAs account for only 3 percent of all 

students in SFAs with enrollments 

under 50,000.84

• Nearly 102,000 schools and 

residential child care institutions 

participate in the NSLP. These include 

more than 90,000 public schools, 6,000 

private schools, and about 5,000 

residential child care institutions 

(RCCIs).85 We focus on the impact at the 

SFA level in this document, rather than 

the school level, because SFAs are 

responsible for the administration of the 

NSLP and the SBP. 

• Food service management 

companies (FSMCs) that prepare school 

meals or menus under contract to SFAs 

are affected indirectly by the proposed 

rule. Thirteen percent of public school 

SFAs contracted with FSMCs in school 

year (SY) 2004–2005.86 Of the 2,460 

firms categorized as ‘‘food service 

contractors’’ under NAICS code 72231, 

96 percent employ fewer than 500 

workers.87

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements 

The analysis below covers only those 

organizations impacted by the proposed 

rule that were determined to be small 

entities. 

School Food Authorities (SFA)/Schools 

Increased Cost To Produce School Meals 

It is estimated that the proposed rule 

will raise the average cost of producing 

and serving school lunches by almost 7 

cents and school breakfasts by 37 cents 

on initial implementation. By FY 2015, 

when the 100 percent whole grain rich 

requirement takes effect, the cost per 

lunch will be 14 cents higher than our 

baseline estimate; the cost per breakfast 

will be 50 cents higher. Across all SFAs 

we estimate that the total cost of 

compliance will be $6.8 billion over five 

years. Although about 99 percent of 

SFAs enroll fewer than 50,000 students, 

they enroll only about 80 percent of all 

students. If they serve about 80 percent 

of all meals (we do not have data on 

meals served by SFA size) then these 

small entities would incur roughly 80 

percent of estimated costs. 

Increased costs of producing school 

meals as a result of the proposed rule 

are not expected to fall 

disproportionally on smaller SFAs. We 

estimate the cost of the proposed rule on 

a per meal basis. Schools that face 

average labor and food costs, and have 

menus typical of the average school will 

incur costs directly proportional to their 

size. We estimate that those costs will 

equal our estimated cost per meal 

multiplied by the number of meals 

served. 

The most important factors that will 

separate schools with higher than 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

88SBA’s ‘‘A Guide for Government Agencies’’ 

identifies several examples of significant impact: A 

rule that provides a strong disincentive to seek 

capital; 175 staff hours per year for recordkeeping; 

impacts greater than the $500 fine (in 1980 dollars) 

imposed for noncompliance; new capital 

requirements beyond the reach of the entity; and 

any impact less cost-efficient than another 

reasonable regulatory alternative. 

89SBA, ‘‘A Guide for Government Agencies’’, p. 

20. 

average per-meal costs from those with 

lower than average costs are not 

necessarily associated with the size of 

the SFA. For instance, schools with 

menus that already emphasize fruits, 

non-starchy vegetables, and whole 

grains will need to make fewer changes, 

and the costs of implementation in 

those schools may be lower than 

average. Also, because the per-meal cost 

of complying with the proposed 

requirements is much higher for 

breakfast than for lunch, the overall 

costs of implementation in schools that 

serve the most school breakfasts relative 

to lunches will be higher than the costs 

faced by schools that do not serve 

breakfast. 

Increased Cost of Administering School 

Meals Programs 

An initial increase in administrative 

staff time for training and 

implementation is anticipated at the 

SFA level. The proposed rule increases 

the length of State reviews of SFAs 

through the Coordinated Review Effort 

(CRE) by incorporating the requirements 

of School Meals Initiative (SMI) 

reviews, and increases their frequency 

to once every three years. SFAs that 

previously had separate CREs and SMIs 

may experience a decrease in burden, 

because they will undergo just one CRE 

every three years, rather than two 

reviews (one CRE and one SMI) every 

five years. 

The proposed rule incorporates the 

provision of training and technical 

assistance by SAs to the SFAs. SFAs 

must, in turn, adjust their current 

training agenda to include the new 

requirements, as no funding has been 

provided in the proposed rule to 

accommodate new training. 

In total, these administrative changes, 

in the form of recordkeeping and 

reporting burden arising from the 

proposed rule, are estimated to result in 

a net change of 8.2 hours for each of 

about 7,000 SFAs per year. The 

additional 8.2 hours of record keeping 

and reporting burden to SFAs per year 

would not rise to the level of a 

significant impact for RFA purposes.88

Increased Equipment Costs 

SFAs may need to purchase new 

equipment to prepare and serve meals 

that comply with the proposed 

standards. For example, some SFAs may 

need to replace fryers with ovens or 

steamers. In FY 2009, FNS solicited 

requests from SFAs for food service 

equipment grants, awarding $100 

million in 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Equipment 

Grants and an additional $25 million in 

one-time funds included in the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act. In response to their 

solicitations for these funds, State 

agencies received a total of 

approximately $600 million in grant 

requests from SFAs. The strong 

response to these grant programs 

indicates a substantial demand for 

investment in kitchen equipment. 

We do not have the data necessary to 

measure the remaining unmet demand 

in smaller SFAs or in SFAs that did not 

receive grants. However, much of that 

demand is driven by the routine need to 

replace equipment that is nearing the 

end of its useful life—a cost that is 

appropriately covered by USDA meal 

reimbursements and other sources of 

food service revenue. For recipient 

SFAs, the grants temporarily freed some 

of those revenue sources for other 

priorities. In the absence of additional 

Congressional action, SFAs must again 

turn to those sources to meet their 

ongoing equipment needs. 

Options for Addressing Increased Costs 

Most schools will have a number of 

options and flexibilities within available 

revenue streams and operational 

approaches that can help to balance 

costs and resources. The primary 

resources available to SFAs are listed 

here. 

1. Federal Reimbursements: About 

half of all SFA revenues are from 

Federal reimbursements. These 

payments are adjusted annually for 

changes in food and labor costs by 

statute. SLBCS–II found that in 2005– 

06, for most reimbursable lunches and 

in most SFAs, reported lunch 

production costs were less than the 

Federal free lunch subsidy by a small 

amount, with the difference greatest in 

SFAs that produce more meals, 

resulting in a lower per-meal cost. 

2. Student Payments: School districts 

have the discretion to set student 

payments for ‘‘paid meals’’ and a` la carte 

foods at levels of their choosing, so long 

as the resulting revenues are paid into 

the non-profit school food service 

account. Some currently set prices for 

these meals and foods at levels that do 

not cover the full cost of production, 

with Federal payments for free and 

reduced-price meals covering the 

difference. Schools will likely face 

additional incentives to adjust their 

pricing policies so that adequate 

revenue is generated to cover the cost of 

production. 

3. State and Local Funds: A limited 

but nonetheless substantial portion of 

meal production costs are paid from 

State and local government sources. The 

contributions of these entities may need 

to increase to cover costs. 

4. Operational Changes: Like other 

service businesses, schools may need to 

consider changes to their operations to 

increase efficiency and meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

Several hundred schools recognized as 

part of the HealthierUS School 

Challenge (HUSSC) have demonstrated 

an ability to operate cost-effective 

school meals programs that meet many 

of the proposed rule’s requirements. 

These schools may offer models for 

others as implementation moves 

forward. 

We recognize that small SFAs, like 

others, will face substantial costs and 

potential challenges in implementing 

the proposed rule. These costs are not 

significantly greater for small SFAs than 

for larger ones, as implementation costs 

are driven primarily by factors other 

than SFA size. Nevertheless, we do not 

discount the special challenges that may 

face some smaller SFAs. As a group, 

small SFAs may have less flexibility to 

adjust resources in response to 

immediate budgetary needs. The time 

between publication of the proposed 

and final rules offers these SFAs some 

opportunity, however, for advance 

planning. 

Food Service Management Companies 

FSMCs are potentially indirectly 

affected by the proposed rule. FSMCs 

that provide school meals under 

contract to SFAs will need to alter those 

products to conform to the proposed 

changes in meal requirements. In 

addition, FSMCs may find new 

opportunities to work with SFAs that 

currently do not contract for food 

service assistance, a ‘‘beneficial impact’’ 

of the regulation. Consistent with SBA 

guidance, which notes that ‘‘[t]he courts 

have held that the RFA requires an 

agency to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of small entity 

impacts only when a rule directly 

regulates them’’,89 we do not attempt to 

quantify the economic effect of the 

proposed rule on FSMCs. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

FNS is unaware of any such Federal 

rules or laws. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2551 

Significant Alternatives 

The proposed rule establishes a single 

effective date that applies to all local 

educational agencies (LEAs), regardless 

of size. Schools vary in the extent to 

which they meet current nutrition 

requirements for reimbursable meals. 

Though most are reasonably successful 

in meeting the food group requirements 

under current rules, some schools may 

find it operationally difficult, or too 

costly, to prepare and serve meals that 

satisfy the new requirements of the 

proposed rule by SY 2012–2013. 

Though we are not aware of any 

evidentiary basis to distinguish groups 

of schools that may find it more difficult 

to meet the proposed requirements than 

others, the regulatory impact analysis 

considers as an alternative the phase-in 

adopted by Congress for the requirement 

to conduct direct certification under 

Section 104 of the Child Nutrition and 

WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 

(Public Law 108–265). LEAs with more 

than 25,000 students could be required 

to implement by SY 2012–2013, those 

with 10,000 to 25,000 students by SY 

2013–2014, and those with less than 

10,000 students by SY 2014–2015. Final 

whole grain requirements would 

become effective two years after 

implementation in each cohort of LEAs. 

Such an approach would give smaller 

LEAs more time to meet the 

requirements than larger ones and 

reduce the cost and impact of the rule 

during the first five years of 

implementation. 

It would also, however, reduce the 

potential benefits of providing more 

nutritious meals to the children in those 

schools. Participation in the school 

meals program is highest among 

elementary school students; 

participation decreases as students 

move to middle and high school. One of 

the stated goals of IOM was to ‘‘foster 

healthy eating habits’’ through exposure 

to the school meals program. Because of 

the decrease in participation among 

older students, the school meals 

program has only a limited opportunity 

to influence the eating habits of some 

students. Students in smaller SFAs who 

are not introduced to the proposed meal 

requirements while still in elementary 

school may not benefit at all from 

delayed implementation of the rule. 

Because a phased implementation 

would deny some students the benefits 

of healthier school meals, this 

alternative schedule was not proposed. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 210 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, School 

breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

7 CFR Part 220 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 210 and 220 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 210–NATIONAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 210 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751–1760, 1779. 

2. In § 210.2: 

a. Revise the definition of Food 

component; 

b. Revise the definition of Food item; 

c. Amend the definition of Lunch by 

removing the words ‘‘applicable 

nutrition standards and portion sizes’’ 

and adding in their place the words 

‘‘meal requirements’’; 

d. Remove the definition of Menu 

item; 

e. Remove the definition of Nutrient 

Standard Menu Planning/Assisted 

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning; 

f. Revise the definition of School 

week; and 

g. Add the definition of Whole grains. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 210.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Food component means one of the 

five food groups which comprise 

reimbursable meals. The five food 

components are: Meats/meat alternates, 

grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk. 

* * * * * 

Food item means a specific food 

offered within the five food 

components: Meats/meat alternates, 

grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk. 

* * * * * 

School week means the period of time 

used to determine compliance with the 

meal requirements in § 210.10. The 

period shall be a normal school week of 

five consecutive days; however, to 

accommodate shortened weeks resulting 

from holidays and other scheduling 

needs, the period shall be a minimum 

of three consecutive days and a 

maximum of seven consecutive days. 

Weeks in which school lunches are 

offered less than three times shall be 

combined with either the previous or 

the coming week. 

* * * * * 

Whole grains means grains that 

consist of the intact, ground, cracked, or 

flaked grain seed whose principal 

anatomical components—the starchy 

endosperm, germ and bran—are present 

in the same relative proportions as they 

exist in the intact grain seed. Whole 

grain-rich products must conform to 

FNS guidance to count toward the 

grains component. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 210.10 to read as follows: 

§ 210.10 Meal requirements for lunches 

and requirements for afterschool snacks. 

(a) General requirements. (1) General 

nutrition requirements. Schools must 

offer nutritious, well-balanced, and ageappropriate meals to all the children 

they serve to improve their diets and 

safeguard their health. 

(i) Requirements for lunch. School 

lunches offered to children age 5 or 

older must meet, at a minimum, the 

meal requirements in paragraph (b) of 

this section. Schools must follow a foodbased menu planning approach and 

produce enough food to offer each child 

the quantities specified in the meal 

pattern established in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each age/grade group 

served in the school. In addition, school 

lunches must meet the dietary 

specifications in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Schools offering lunches to 

children ages 1 to 4 and infants must 

meet the meal pattern requirements in 

paragraph (p) of this section. 

(ii) Requirements for afterschool 

snacks. Schools offering afterschool 

snacks in afterschool care programs 

must meet the meal pattern 

requirements in paragraph (o) of this 

section. Schools must plan and produce 

enough food to offer each child the 

minimum quantities under the meal 

pattern in paragraph (o) of this section. 

The component requirements for meal 

supplements served under the Child 

and Adult Care Food Program 

authorized under part 226 of this 

chapter also apply to afterschool snacks 

served in accordance with paragraph (o) 

of this section. 

(2) Unit pricing. Schools must price 

each meal as a unit. Schools need to 

consider participation trends in an effort 

to provide one reimbursable lunch and, 

if applicable, one reimbursable 

afterschool snack for each child every 

school day. If there are leftover meals, 

schools may offer them to the students 

but cannot get reimbursement for them. 

Schools must identify, near or at the 

beginning of the serving line(s), the food 

items that constitute the unit-priced 

reimbursable school meal(s). 

(3) Production and menu records. 

Schools or school food authorities, as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

applicable, must keep production and 

menu records for the meals they 

produce. These records must show how 

the meals offered contribute to the 

required food components and food 

quantities for each age/grade group 

every day. Labels or manufacturer 

specifications for food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals must indicate zero grams of trans 

fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams). 

Schools or school food authorities must 

maintain records of the latest nutritional 

analysis of the school menus conducted 

by the State agency. Production and 

menu records must be maintained in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

(b) Meal requirements for school 

lunches. School lunches for children 

ages 5 and older must reflect food and 

nutrition requirements specified by the 

Secretary. Compliance with these 

requirements is measured as follows: 

(1) On a daily basis: (i) Meals offered 

to each age/grade group must include 

the food components and food 

quantities specified in the meal pattern 

in paragraph (c) of this section; 

(ii) Food products or ingredients used 

to prepare meals must contain zero 

grams of trans fat per serving or a 

minimal amount of naturally-occurring 

trans fat; and 

(iii) Meals selected by each student 

must have the number of food 

components required for a reimbursable 

meal and include at least one fruit or 

vegetable. 

(2) Over a 5-day school week: (i) 

Average calorie content of meals offered 

to each age/grade group must be within 

the minimum and maximum calorie 

levels specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section; 

(ii) Average saturated fat content of 

the meals offered to each age/grade 

group must be less than 10 percent of 

total calories; and 

(iii) Average sodium content of the 

meals offered to each age/grade group 

must not exceed the maximum level 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(c) Meal pattern for school lunches. 

Schools must offer the food components 

and quantities required in the lunch 

meal pattern established in the 

following table: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2553 

(1) Age/grade groups. Schools must 

plan menus for students using the 

following age/grade groups: grades K–5 

(ages 5–10), grades 6–8 (ages 11–13), 

and grades 9–12 (ages 14–18). If an 

unusual grade configuration in a school 

prevents the use of these established 

age/grade groups, students in grades K– 

5 and grades 6–8 may be offered the 

same food quantities at lunch provided 

that the calorie and sodium standards 

for each age/grade group are met. No 

customization of the established age/ 

grade groups is allowed. 

(2) Food components. Schools must 

offer students in each age/grade group 

the food components specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(i) Meats/meat alternates component. 

Schools must offer meats/meat 

alternates daily as part of the lunch 

meal pattern. The quantity of meats/ 

meat alternates must be the edible 

portion as served. This component must 

be served in a main dish or in a main 

dish and only one other food item. 

Schools without daily choices in this 

component should not serve any one 

meat alternate or form of meat (for 

example, ground, diced, pieces) more 

than three times in the same week. If a 

portion size of this component does not 

meet the daily requirement for a 

particular age/grade group, schools may 

supplement it with another meats/meat 

alternates to meet the full requirement. 

Schools may adjust the daily quantities 

of this component provided that a 

minimum of one ounce is offered daily 

and the total weekly requirement is met 

over a five-day period. 

(A) Enriched macaroni. Enriched 

macaroni with fortified protein as 

defined in Appendix A to this part may 

be used to meet part of the meats/meat 

alternates requirement when used as 

specified in Appendix A to this part. An 

enriched macaroni product with 

fortified protein as defined in Appendix 

A to this part may be used to meet part 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.023</GPH>
2554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of the meats/meat alternates component 

or the grains component but not as both 

food components in the same lunch. 

(B) Nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds 

and their butters are allowed as meat 

alternates in accordance with program 

guidance. Acorns, chestnuts, and 

coconuts may not be used because of 

their low protein and iron content. Nut 

and seed meals or flours may be used 

only if they meet the requirements for 

Alternate Protein Products established 

in Appendix A to this part. Nuts or 

seeds may be used to meet no more than 

one-half (50 percent) of the meats/meat 

alternates component with another 

meats/meat alternates to meet the full 

requirement. 

(C) Yogurt. Yogurt may be used to 

meet all or part of the meats/meat 

alternates component. Yogurt may be 

plain or flavored, unsweetened or 

sweetened. Noncommercial and/or nonstandardized yogurt products, such as 

frozen yogurt, drinkable yogurt 

products, homemade yogurt, yogurt 

flavored products, yogurt bars, yogurt 

covered fruits and/or nuts or similar 

products are not creditable. Four ounces 

(weight) or 1⁄2 cup (volume) of yogurt 

equals one ounce of the meats/meat 

alternates requirement. 

(ii) Fruits component. Schools must 

offer fruits daily as part of the lunch 

menu. Fruits that are fresh; frozen 

without sugar; canned in light syrup, 

water or fruit juice; or dried may be 

offered to meet the requirements of this 

paragraph. All fruits are credited based 

on their volume as served, except that 

1⁄4 cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup 

of fruit. Only pasteurized, full-strength 

fruit juice may be used, and may be 

credited to meet no more than one-half 

of the fruits component. 

(iii) Vegetables component. Schools 

must offer vegetables daily as part of the 

lunch menu. Fresh, frozen, or canned 

vegetables and dried legumes may be 

offered to meet this requirement. All 

vegetables are credited based on their 

volume as served, except that 1 cup of 

leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of 

vegetables. Pasteurized, full-strength 

vegetable juice may be used to meet no 

more than one-half of the vegetable 

requirement. Cooked dry beans or peas 

may be counted as either a vegetable or 

as a meat alternate but not as both in the 

same meal. Vegetable offerings at lunch 

must include the following vegetable 

subgroups in the quantities specified in 

the meal pattern in paragraph (c) of this 

section: 

(A) Dark green vegetables. This 

subgroup includes bok choy, broccoli, 

collard greens, dark green leafy lettuce, 

kale, mustard greens, romaine lettuce, 

spinach, turnip greens, and watercress; 

(B) Orange vegetables. This subgroup 

includes acorn squash, butternut 

squash, carrots, pumpkin, and sweet 

potato; 

(C) Legumes (dry beans). This 

subgroup includes black beans, blackeyed peas, garbanzo beans, green peas, 

kidney beans, lentils, lima beans, soy 

beans, split peas, and white beans; 

(D) Starchy vegetables. This subgroup 

includes corn, green peas, lima beans, 

and white potatoes. Green peas and 

fresh, frozen, or canned (not dried) lima 

beans are considered part of this 

subgroup and part of the legumes 

subgroup, but must be counted in one 

subgroup only in the same meal; and 

(E) Other vegetables. This subgroup 

includes all other fresh, frozen, and 

canned vegetables, cooked or raw, 

including tomatoes, tomato juice, 

iceberg lettuce, green beans, and onions. 

(iv) Grains component. (A) Enriched 

or whole grains. All grains must be 

enriched or whole grain-rich, or made 

with enriched or whole grain meal or 

flour, in accordance with the most 

recent grains guidance from FNS. 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. The 

grains requirement is based on 

minimum daily servings plus total 

servings over a five-day school week. 

Half of the grains offered during the 

school week must meet the whole grainrich criteria specified in FNS guidance. 

Two years post implementation of the 

final rule all grains offered during the 

school week must meet the whole grainrich criteria specified in FNS guidance. 

The whole grain-rich criteria may be 

updated to reflect additional 

information provided voluntarily by 

industry on the food label or a whole 

grains definition by the Food and Drug 

Administration. Schools serving lunch 6 

or 7 days per week must increase the 

weekly grains quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1/5th) for 

each additional day. When schools 

operate less than 5 days per week, they 

may decrease the weekly quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1/5th) for 

each day less than five. The servings for 

biscuits, rolls, muffins, pastas, cereals, 

and other grains varieties are specified 

in program guidance. 

(C) Desserts. Schools may count up to 

one grain-based dessert per day towards 

meeting the grains requirement as 

specified in the Grains/Bread 

Instruction issued by FNS. 

(v) Fluid milk component. Fluid milk 

must be offered daily in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section. 

(3) Food components in outlying 

areas. Schools in American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may 

serve vegetables such as yams, 

plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the 

grains component. 

(4) Adjustments to the school menus. 

Schools must adjust future menu cycles 

to reflect production and how often the 

food items are offered. Schools may 

need to change the foods offered given 

the students’ selections and may need to 

modify the recipes and other 

specifications to make sure that the 

meal requirements are met. 

(5) Standardized recipes. All schools 

must develop and follow standardized 

recipes. A standardized recipe is a 

recipe that was tested to provide an 

established yield and quantity using the 

same ingredients for both measurement 

and preparation methods. Standardized 

recipes developed by USDA/FNS are in 

the Child Nutrition Database. If a school 

has its own recipes, they may seek 

assistance from the State agency or 

school food authority to standardize the 

recipes. Schools must add any local 

recipes to their local database as 

outlined in FNS guidance. 

(6) Processed foods. The Child 

Nutrition Database includes a number of 

processed foods. Schools may use 

purchased processed foods that are not 

in the Child Nutrition Database. Schools 

or the State agency must add any locally 

purchased processed foods to their local 

database as outlined in FNS guidance. 

The State agencies must obtain the 

levels of calories, saturated fat, and 

sodium in the processed foods. 

(7) Menu substitutions. Schools 

should always try to substitute 

nutritionally similar foods. 

(d) Fluid milk requirement. (1) Types 

of fluid milk. (i) Schools must offer 

students a variety of fluid milk. Milk 

must be fat-free or low-fat. Milk with 

higher fat content is not allowed. Fatfree fluid milk may be flavored or 

unflavored, and low-fat fluid milk must 

be unflavored. Lactose-free fluid milk 

may also be offered. 

(ii) All fluid milk served in the 

Program must be pasteurized fluid milk 

which meets State and local standards 

for such milk. All fluid milk must have 

vitamins A and D at levels specified by 

the Food and Drug Administration and 

must be consistent with State and local 

standards for such milk. 

(2) Inadequate fluid milk supply. If a 

school cannot get a supply of fluid milk, 

it can still participate in the Program 

under the following conditions: 

(i) If emergency conditions 

temporarily prevent a school that 

normally has a supply of fluid milk 

from obtaining delivery of such milk, 

the State agency may allow the school 

to serve meals during the emergency 

period with an alternate form of fluid 

milk or without fluid milk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2555 

(ii) If a school is unable to obtain a 

supply of any type of fluid milk on a 

continuing basis, the State agency may 

approve the service of meals without 

fluid milk if the school uses an 

equivalent amount of canned milk or 

dry milk in the preparation of the meals. 

In Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands, if a sufficient supply of fluid 

milk cannot be obtained, ‘‘fluid milk’’ 

includes reconstituted or recombined 

fluid milk, or as otherwise allowed by 

FNS through a written exception. 

(3) Fluid milk substitutes. If a school 

chooses to offer one or more substitutes 

for fluid milk for non-disabled students 

with medical or special dietary needs, 

the nondairy beverage(s) must provide 

the nutrients listed in the following 

table. Fluid milk substitutes must be 

fortified in accordance with fortification 

guidelines issued by the Food and Drug 

Administration. A school need only 

offer the nondairy beverage(s) that it has 

identified as allowable fluid milk 

substitutes according to the following 

chart. 

Nutrient Per cup (8 fl 

oz) 

Calcium ..................................... 276 mg. 

Protein ...................................... 8 g. 

Vitamin A .................................. 500 IU. 

Vitamin D .................................. 100 IU. 

Magnesium ............................... 24 mg. 

Phosphorus ............................... 222 mg. 

Potassium ................................. 349 mg. 

Riboflavin .................................. 0.44 mg. 

Vitamin B–12 ............................ 1.1 mcg. 

(4) Restrictions on the sale of fluid 

milk. A school participating in the 

Program, or a person approved by a 

school participating in the Program, 

must not directly or indirectly restrict 

the sale or marketing of fluid milk (as 

identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section) at any time or in any place on 

school premises or at any schoolsponsored event. 

(e) Offer versus serve. School lunches 

must offer daily the five food 

components specified in the meal 

pattern in paragraph (c) of this section. 

Under offer versus serve, students in 

senior high (as defined by the State 

educational agency) must be allowed to 

decline two items at lunch but must 

select at least one fruit or vegetable. 

Students below the senior high level 

may participate in offer versus serve at 

the discretion of the school food 

authority. The price of a reimbursable 

lunch does not change if the student 

does not take a food item or requests 

smaller portions. Schools may not 

require a student to take the entre ́e, 

which is a combination of foods or a 

single food item that is offered as the 

main course. 

(f) Dietary specifications. (1) Calories. 

School lunches offered to each age/ 

grade group must meet, on average over 

the school week, the minimum and 

maximum calorie levels specified in the 

following table: 

Calorie ranges for lunch 

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Min-max calories (kcal) a b ................................................................................................ 550–650 600–700 750–850 

aThe average daily amount for a 5-day school week must fall within the minimum and maximum levels. 

b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. 

(2) Saturated fat. School lunches 

offered to all age/grade groups must, on 

average over the school week, provide 

less than 10 percent of total calories 

from saturated fat. 

(3) Sodium. School lunches offered to 

each age/grade group must meet, on 

average over the school week, the levels 

of sodium specified in the following 

table: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.024</GPH>
2556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Trans fat. Food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals must contain zero grams of trans 

fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving. 

Schools must add the trans fat 

specification and request the required 

documentation (nutrition label or 

manufacturer specifications) in their 

procurement contracts. Documentation 

for food products and food ingredients 

must indicate zero grams of trans fat per 

serving. Meats that contain a minimal 

amount of naturally-occurring trans fats 

are allowed in the school meal 

programs. 

(g) Compliance assistance. The State 

agency and school food authority must 

provide technical assistance and 

training to assist schools in planning 

lunches that meet the meal pattern in 

paragraph (c) of this section and the 

calorie, saturated fat, sodium, and trans 

fat specifications established in 

paragraph (f) of this section. Compliance 

assistance may be offered during annual 

training, onsite visits, and/or 

administrative reviews. 

(h) State Agency responsibilities for 

monitoring dietary specifications. (1) 

Calories, saturated fat and sodium. As 

part of the administrative review 

authorized under § 210.18 of this 

chapter, State agencies must conduct a 

nutrient analysis for the school(s) 

selected for review to evaluate the 

average levels of calories, saturated fat, 

and sodium of the lunches offered to 

students in grades K and above during 

the review period. The nutrient analysis 

must be conducted in accordance with 

the procedures established in paragraph 

(i)(3) of this section. If the results of the 

nutrient analysis indicate that the 

school lunches are not meeting the 

standards for calories, saturated fat, and 

sodium specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section, the State agency or school food 

authority must provide technical 

assistance and require the reviewed 

school to take corrective action to meet 

the established standards. 

(2) Trans fat. During the 

administrative review, State agencies 

must verify that the food products or 

ingredients used by the reviewed 

school(s) contain zero grams of trans fat 

(less than 0.5 grams) per serving. 

(i) State agency’s responsibilities for 

nutrient analyses. (1) Conducting the 

nutrient analyses. State agencies must 

conduct a nutrient analysis of the 

reimbursable meals offered to children 

in grades K and above by a school 

selected for administrative review under 

§ 210.18 of this chapter. The nutrient 

analysis must be conducted in 

accordance with the procedures 

established in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section. The purpose of the nutrient 

analysis is to determine the average 

levels of calories, saturated fat, and 

sodium in the meals offered over a 

school week. Unless offered as part of a 

reimbursable meal, foods of minimal 

nutritional value (see appendix B to part 

210) are not included in the nutrient 

analysis. 

(2) Software elements. (i) The Child 

Nutrition Database. The nutrient 

analysis is based on the USDA Child 

Nutrition Database. This database is part 

of the software used to do a nutrient 

analysis. Software companies or others 

developing systems for schools may 

contact FNS for more information about 

the database. 

(ii) Software evaluation. FNS or an 

FNS designee evaluates any nutrient 

analysis software before it may be used 

in schools. FNS or its designee 

determines if the software, as submitted, 

meets the minimum requirements. The 

approval of software does not mean that 

FNS or USDA endorses it. The software 

must be able to perform a weighted 

average analysis after the basic data is 

entered. The combined analysis of the 

lunch and breakfast programs is not 

allowed. 

(3) Nutrient analysis procedures. (i) 

Weighted averages. State agencies must 

include all foods offered in the 

reimbursable meals in the nutrient 

analysis. Foods items are included 

based on the portion sizes and projected 

serving amounts. They are also 

weighted based on their proportionate 

contribution to the meals offered. This 

means that food items offered more 

frequently are weighted more heavily 

than those not offered as frequently. 

State agencies calculate weighting as 

indicated by FNS guidance and by the 

guidance provided by the software. 

(ii) Analyzed nutrients. The analysis 

determines the average levels of 

calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

the meals offered over a school week. It 

includes all food items offered by the 

reviewed school over a two-week 

period. 

(4) Comparing the results of the 

nutrient analysis. Once the procedures 

in paragraph (i)(3) of this section are 

completed, State agencies must compare 

the results of the analysis to the calorie, 

saturated fat, and sodium levels 

established in § 210.10 or § 220.8, as 

appropriate, for each age/grade group to 

evaluate the school’s compliance with 

the meal requirements. 

(j) State agency’s responsibilities for 

compliance monitoring. Compliance 

with the meal requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section, including 

dietary specifications for calories, 

saturated fat and sodium, will be 

monitored by the State agency through 

administrative reviews authorized in 

§ 210.18 of this chapter. 

(k) Menu choices at lunch. (1) 

Availability of choices. Schools may 

offer children a selection of nutritious 

foods within a reimbursable lunch to 

encourage the consumption of a variety 

of foods. Children who are eligible for 

free or reduced price lunches must be 

allowed to take any reimbursable lunch 

or any choices offered as part of a 

reimbursable lunch. Schools may 

establish different unit prices for each 

reimbursable lunch offered provided 

that the benefits made available to 

children eligible for free or reduced 

price lunches are not affected. 

(2) Opportunity to select. Schools that 

choose to offer a variety of reimbursable 

lunches, or provide multiple serving 

lines, must make all required food 

components available to all students, on 

every lunch line, in at least the 

minimum required amounts. 

(l) Requirements for lunch periods. (1) 

Timing. Schools must offer lunches 

meeting the requirements of this section 

during the period the school has 

designated as the lunch period. Schools 

must offer lunches between 10 a.m. and 

2 p.m. Schools may request an 

exemption from these times from the 

State agency. 

(2) Adequate lunch periods. FNS 

encourages schools to provide sufficient 

lunch periods that are long enough to 

give all students adequate time to be 

served and to eat their lunches. 

(m) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable meals. (1) Exceptions 

for disability reasons. Schools must 

make substitutions in lunches and 

afterschool snacks for students who are 

considered to have a disability under 7 

CFR 15b.3 and whose disability restricts 

their diet. Substitutions must be made 

on a case by case basis only when 

supported by a written statement of the 

need for substitution(s) that includes 

recommended alternate foods, unless 

otherwise exempted by FNS. Such 

statement must be signed by a licensed 

physician. 

(2) Exceptions for non-disability 

reasons. Schools may make 

substitutions for students without 

disabilities who cannot consume the 

regular lunch or afterschool snack 

because of medical or other special 

dietary needs. Substitutions must be 

made on a case by case basis only when 

supported by a written statement of the 

need for substitutions that includes 

recommended alternate foods, unless 

otherwise exempted by FNS. Except 

with respect to substitutions for fluid 

milk, such a statement must be signed 

by a recognized medical authority. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2557 

(i) Fluid milk substitutions for nondisability reasons. Schools may make 

substitutions for fluid milk for nondisabled students who cannot consume 

fluid milk due to medical or special 

dietary needs. A school that selects this 

option may offer the nondairy 

beverage(s) of its choice, provided the 

beverage(s) meets the nutritional 

standards established under paragraph 

(d) of this section. Expenses incurred 

when providing substitutions for fluid 

milk that exceed program 

reimbursements must be paid by the 

school food authority. 

(ii) Requisites for fluid milk 

substitutions. (A) A school food 

authority must inform the State agency 

if any of its schools choose to offer fluid 

milk substitutes other than for students 

with disabilities; and 

(B) A medical authority or the 

student’s parent or legal guardian must 

submit a written request for a fluid milk 

substitute identifying the medical or 

other special dietary need that restricts 

the student’s diet. 

(iii) Substitution approval. The 

approval for fluid milk substitution 

must remain in effect until the medical 

authority or the student’s parent or legal 

guardian revokes such request in 

writing, or until such time as the school 

changes its substitution policy for 

nondisabled students. 

(3) Variations for ethnic, religious, or 

economic reasons. Schools should 

consider ethnic and religious 

preferences when planning and 

preparing meals. Variations on an 

experimental or continuing basis in the 

food components for the meal pattern in 

paragraph (c) of this section may be 

allowed by FNS. Any variations must be 

consistent with the food and nutrition 

requirements specified under this 

section and needed to meet ethnic, 

religious, or economic needs. 

(4) Exceptions for natural disasters. If 

there is a natural disaster or other 

catastrophe, FNS may temporarily allow 

schools to serve meals for 

reimbursement that do not meet the 

requirements in this section. 

(n) Nutrition disclosure. To the extent 

that school food authorities identify 

foods in a menu, or on the serving line 

or through other communications with 

program participants, school food 

authorities must identify products or 

dishes containing more than 30 parts 

fully hydrated alternate protein 

products (as specified in appendix A of 

this part) to less than 70 parts beef, 

pork, poultry or seafood on an uncooked 

basis, in a manner which does not 

characterize the product or dish solely 

as beef, pork, poultry or seafood. 

Additionally, FNS encourages schools 

to inform the students, parents, and the 

public about efforts they are making to 

meet the meal requirements for school 

lunches. 

(o) Afterschool snacks. Eligible 

schools operating afterschool care 

programs may be reimbursed for one 

afterschool snack served to a child (as 

defined in § 210.2) per day. 

(1) Eligible schools mean schools that: 

(i) Operate school lunch programs 

under the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act; and 

(ii) Sponsor afterschool care programs 

as defined in § 210.2. 

(2) Afterschool snacks shall contain 

two different components from the 

following four: 

(i) A serving of fluid milk as a 

beverage, or on cereal, or used in part 

for each purpose; 

(ii) A serving of meat or meat 

alternate. Nuts and seeds and their 

butters listed in program guidance are 

nutritionally comparable to meat or 

other meat alternates based on available 

nutritional data. Acorns, chestnuts, and 

coconuts are excluded and shall not be 

used as meat alternates due to their low 

protein content. Nut or seed meals or 

flours shall not be used as a meat 

alternate except as allowed under 

appendix A of this part; 

(iii) A serving of vegetable(s) or 

fruit(s) or full-strength vegetable or fruit 

juice, or an equivalent quantity of any 

combination of these foods. All fruits 

and vegetables are credited based on 

their volume as served. Juice may not be 

served when fluid milk is served as the 

only other component; 

(iv) A serving of whole-grain or 

enriched bread; or an equivalent serving 

of a bread product, such as cornbread, 

biscuits, rolls, or muffins made with 

whole-grain or enriched meal or flour; 

or a serving of cooked whole-grain or 

enriched pasta or noodle products such 

as macaroni, or cereal grains such as 

enriched rice, bulgur, or enriched corn 

grits; or an equivalent quantity of any 

combination of these foods. 

(3) Afterschool snacks served to 

infants ages birth through 11 months 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section. 

Foods offered as meal supplements 

must be of a texture and a consistency 

that are appropriate for the age of the 

infant being served. The foods must be 

served during a span of time consistent 

with the infant’s eating habits. For those 

infants whose dietary needs are more 

individualized, exceptions to the meal 

pattern must be made in accordance 

with the requirements found in 

paragraph (m) of this section. 

(i) Breastmilk and iron-fortified 

formula. Either breastmilk or ironfortified infant formula, or portions of 

both, must be served for the entire first 

year. Snacks containing breastmilk and 

snacks containing iron-fortified infant 

formula supplied by the school are 

eligible for reimbursement. However, 

infant formula provided by a parent (or 

guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by 

the infant’s mother, during a visit to the 

school, contribute to a reimbursable 

snack only when the school supplies at 

least one component of the infant’s 

snack. 

(ii) Fruit juice. Juice should not be 

offered to infants until they are 6 

months of age and ready to drink from 

a cup. Fruit juice served as part of the 

meal pattern for infants 8 through 11 

months must be full-strength and 

pasteurized. 

(iii) Solid foods. Solid foods of an 

appropriate texture and consistency are 

required only when the infant is 

developmentally ready to accept them. 

The school should consult with the 

infant’s parent (or guardian) in making 

the decision to introduce solid foods. 

Solid foods should be introduced one at 

a time, on a gradual basis, with the 

intent of ensuring the infant’s health 

and nutritional well-being. 

(iv) Infant meal pattern. Meal 

supplements for infants must include, at 

a minimum, breastmilk or iron-fortified 

infant formula, or portions of both, in 

the appropriate amount indicated for 

the infant’s age. For some breastfed 

infants who regularly consume less than 

the minimum amount of breastmilk per 

feeding, a serving of less than the 

minimum amount of breastmilk may be 

offered. In these situations, additional 

breastmilk must be offered if the infant 

is still hungry. Some infants may be 

developmentally ready to accept an 

additional food component. Meal 

supplements are reimbursable when 

schools provide all of the components 

in the Supplements for Infants table that 

the infant is developmentally ready to 

accept. 

(4) The minimum amounts of food 

components to be served as meal 

supplements follow. Select two different 

components from the four listed in the 

Supplements for Infants table (Juice may 

not be served when fluid milk is served 

as the only other component). A serving 

of bread/bread alternate must be made 

from whole-grain or enriched meal or 

flour. It is required only when the infant 

is developmentally ready to accept it. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTS FOR INFANTS

Birth through 3 months 4 through 7 months 8 through 11 months 

Supplement (snack) ....................... 4–6 fl. oz. breastmilk 1,2 or formula 3.4–6 fl. oz. breastmilk 1,2 or formula 3.2–4 fl. oz. breastmilk 1,2, formula 3, 

or fruit juice 4; 0–1⁄2 bread 5 or 

0–2 crackers 5

1 It is recommended that breastmilk be served in place of formula from birth through 11 months. 

2For some breastfed infants who regularly consume less than the minimum amount of breastmilk per feeding, a serving of less than the minimum amount of breastmilk may be offered with additional breastmilk offered if the infant is still hungry. 3 Infant formula must be iron-fortified. 

4Fruit juice must be full-strength and pasteurized. 

5Bread and bread alternates must be made from whole grain or enriched meal or flour. A serving of this component must be optional. 

(p) Lunches for preschoolers and 

infants. (1) Requirements for 

preschooler’s lunch pattern. (i) General. 

Until otherwise instructed by the 

Secretary, lunches for children ages 1 to 

4 must meet the nutrition standards in 

paragraph (p)(2) of this section, the 

nutrient and calorie levels in paragraph 

(p)(3) of this section, and meal pattern 

in paragraph (p)(4) of this section. 

(ii) Unit pricing. Schools must price 

each meal as a unit. Schools need to 

consider participation trends in an effort 

to provide one reimbursable lunch for 

each child every day. If there are 

leftover meals, schools may offer them 

to the students but cannot receive 

reimbursement for them. 

(iii) Production and menu records. 

Schools must keep production and 

menu records for the meals they 

produce. These records must show how 

the meals contribute to the required 

food components and quantities every 

day. In addition, these records must 

show how the lunches contribute to the 

nutrition standards in paragraph (p)(2) 

of this section and the appropriate 

calorie and nutrient requirements for 

the children served. Schools or school 

food authorities must maintain records 

of the latest nutritional analysis of the 

school menus conducted by the State 

agency. 

(2) Nutrition standards for 

preschoolers’ lunches. Children ages 1 

to 4 must be offered lunches that meet 

the following nutrition standards for 

their age group: 

(i) Provision of one-third of the 

Recommended Dietary Allowances 

(RDAs) for protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamin A and vitamin C in the 

appropriate levels for the ages/grades 

(see paragraph (p)(3) of this section). 

(ii) Provision of the lunchtime energy 

allowances (calories) in the appropriate 

levels (see paragraph (p)(3) of this 

section); 

(iii) The following dietary 

recommendations: 

(A) Eat a variety of foods; 

(B) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total 

calories; 

(C) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 

percent of total calories; 

(D) Choose a diet low in cholesterol; 

(E) Choose a diet with plenty of grain 

products, vegetables, and fruits; and 

(F) Choose a diet moderate in salt and 

sodium. 

(iv) The following measures of 

compliance: 

(A) Limit the percent of calories from 

total fat to 30 percent of the actual 

number of calories offered; 

(B) Limit the percent of calories from 

saturated fat to less than 10 percent of 

the actual number of calories offered; 

(C) Reduce sodium and cholesterol 

levels; and 

(D) Increase the level of dietary fiber. 

(v) Compliance with the nutrition 

standards and the appropriate nutrient 

and calorie levels is determined by the 

State agency in accordance with the 

procedures in paragraph (p)(10) of this 

section. 

(3) Nutrient and calorie levels. The 

minimum levels of nutrients and 

calories that lunches for preschoolers 

must offer are specified in the following 

table: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2559 

(4) Meal pattern for preschoolers’ 

lunches. Schools must follow the 

traditional food-based menu planning 

approach to plan lunches for children 

ages 1–2 and ages 3–4. 

(i) Food components and quantities. 

Lunches must offer the food 

components and quantities specified in 

the following meal pattern: 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.025</GPH>
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 

(ii) Meat/meat alternate component. 

The quantity of the meat/meat alternate 

component must be the edible portion 

as served. If the portion size of a food 

item for this component is excessive, 

the school must reduce that portion and 

supplement it with another meat/meat 

alternate to meet the full requirement. 

This component must be served in a 

main dish or in a main dish and only 

one other food item. Schools without 

daily choices in this component should 

not serve any one meat alternate or form 

of meat (for example, ground, diced, 

pieces) more than three times in the 

same week. Schools may adjust the 

daily quantities of this component 

provided that a minimum of one ounce 

is offered daily and the total weekly 

requirement is met over a five-day 

period. 

(A) Enriched macaroni. Enriched 

macaroni with fortified protein as 

defined in appendix A to this part may 

be used to meet part of the meat/meat 

alternate requirement when used as 

specified in appendix A to this part. An 

enriched macaroni product with 

fortified protein as defined in appendix 

A to this part may be used to meet part 

of the meat/meat alternate component or 

the grains/breads component but not as 

both food components in the same 

lunch. 

(B) Nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds 

and their butters are allowed as meat 

alternates in accordance with program 

guidance. Acorns, chestnuts, and 

coconuts must not be used because of 

their low protein and iron content. Nut 

and seed meals or flours may be used 

only as allowed under appendix A to 

this part. Nuts or seeds may be used to 

meet no more than one-half of the meat/ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2561 

meat alternate component with another 

meat/meat alternate to meet the full 

requirement. 

(C) Yogurt. Yogurt may be used to 

meet all or part of the meat/meat 

alternate requirement. Yogurt may be 

plain or flavored, and unsweetened or 

sweetened. Noncommercial and/or nonstandardized yogurt products, such as 

frozen yogurt, homemade yogurt, yogurt 

flavored products, yogurt bars, yogurt 

covered fruit and/or nuts or similar 

products are not creditable. Four ounces 

(weight) or 1⁄2 cup (volume) of yogurt 

equals one ounce of the meat/meat 

alternate requirement. 

(iii) Vegetable/fruit component. Full 

strength vegetable or fruit juice may be 

used to meet no more than one-half of 

the vegetable/fruit requirement. Cooked 

dry beans or peas may be counted as 

either a vegetable or as a meat alternate 

but not as both in the same meal. 

(iv) Grains/breads component. (A) 

Enriched or whole grains. All grains/ 

breads must be enriched or whole grain 

or made with enriched or whole grain 

meal or flour. 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. The 

requirement for the grain/bread 

component is based on minimum daily 

servings plus total servings over a five 

day period. Schools serving lunch 6 or 

7 days per week should increase the 

weekly quantity by approximately 20 

percent (1⁄5th) for each additional day. 

When schools operate less than 5 days 

per week, they may decrease the weekly 

quantity by approximately 20 percent 

(1⁄5th) for each day less than five. The 

servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and 

other grain/bread varieties are specified 

in the Food Buying Guide for Child 

Nutrition Programs (PA 1331), an FNS 

publication. 

(C) Minimums under the traditional 

food-based menu planning approach. 

Schools must offer daily at least onehalf serving of the grain/bread 

component to children in Group I and 

at least one serving to children in Group 

II. Schools which serve lunch at least 5 

days a week shall serve a total of at least 

five servings of grains/breads to 

children in Group I and eight servings 

per week to children in Group II. 

(D) Offer versus serve. Schools must 

offer all five required food items. At the 

school food authority’s option, students 

in preschool may decline one or two of 

the five food items. The price of a 

reimbursable lunch does not change if 

the student does not take a food item or 

requests smaller portions. 

(E) Meal pattern exceptions for 

outlying areas. Schools in American 

Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands may serve a starchy vegetable 

such as yams, plantains, or sweet 

potatoes to meet the grain/bread 

requirement. 

(5) Fluid milk requirement. Schools 

must offer students in age group 1–2 

years and age group 3–4 years fluid milk 

in a variety of fat contents. Schools may 

offer flavored or unflavored fluid milk 

and lactose-free fluid milk. All fluid 

milk served must be pasteurized fluid 

milk which meets State and local 

standards for such milk. All fluid milk 

must have vitamins A and D at levels 

specified by the Food and Drug 

Administration and must be consistent 

with State and local standards for such 

milk. Schools must also comply with 

other applicable milk requirements in 

§ 210.10(d)(2), § 210.10(d)(3), and 

§ 210.10(d)(4) of this part. 

(6) Menu choices. FNS encourages 

schools to offer children a selection of 

foods at lunch. Choices provide variety 

and encourage consumption. Schools 

may offer choices of reimbursable 

lunches or foods within a reimbursable 

lunch. Children who are eligible for free 

or reduced price lunches must be 

allowed to take any reimbursable lunch 

or any choices offered as part of a 

reimbursable lunch. Schools may 

establish different unit prices for each 

lunch offered provided that the benefits 

made available to children eligible for 

free or reduced price lunches are not 

affected. 

(7) Requirements for lunch periods. (i) 

Timing. Schools must offer lunches 

meeting the requirements of this section 

during the period the school has 

designated as the lunch period. Schools 

must offer lunches between 10 a.m. and 

2 p.m. Schools may request an 

exemption from these times only from 

FNS. 

(ii) Lunch periods for young children. 

With State agency approval, schools are 

encouraged to serve children ages 1 

through 4 over two service periods. 

Schools may divide the quantities and/ 

or the menu items, foods, or food items 

offered each time any way they wish. 

(iii) Adequate lunch periods. FNS 

encourages schools to provide sufficient 

lunch periods that are long enough to 

give all students enough time to be 

served and to eat their lunches. 

(8) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable meals. Schools must 

comply with the requirements in 

§ 210.10(m) of this part. 

(9) Nutrition disclosure. If applicable, 

schools must follow the provisions on 

disclosure of Alternate Protein Products 

in § 210.10(n) of this part. 

(10) State agency’s responsibilities for 

monitoring lunches. As part of the 

administrative review authorized under 

§ 210.18(g)(2) of this chapter, State 

agencies must evaluate compliance with 

the meal pattern requirements (food 

components and quantities) in 

paragraph (d) of this section. If the 

meals for preschoolers do not meet the 

requirements of this section, the State 

agency or school food authority must 

provide technical assistance and require 

the reviewed school to take corrective 

action. In addition, the State agency 

may take fiscal action as authorized in 

§ 210.18(m) and § 210.19(c) of this part. 

(11) Requirements for the infant lunch 

pattern. (i) Definitions. (A) Infant cereal 

means any iron-fortified dry cereal, 

specially formulated and generally 

recognized as cereal for infants, that is 

routinely mixed with breastmilk or ironfortified infant formula prior to 

consumption. 

(B) Infant formula means any ironfortified formula intended for dietary 

use solely as a food for normal, healthy 

infants. Formulas specifically 

formulated for infants with inborn 

errors of metabolism or digestive or 

absorptive problems are not included in 

this definition. Infant formula, when 

served, must be in liquid state at 

recommended dilution. 

(ii) Feeding lunches to infants. 

Lunches served to infants ages birth 

through 11 months must meet the 

requirements in paragraph (k)(5) of this 

section. Foods included in the lunch 

must be of a texture and a consistency 

that are appropriate for the age of the 

infant being served. The foods must be 

served during a span of time consistent 

with the infant’s eating habits. For those 

infants whose dietary needs are more 

individualized, exceptions to the meal 

pattern must be made in accordance 

with the requirements found in 

§ 210.10(m) of this part. 

(iii) Breastmilk and iron-fortified 

formula. Either breastmilk or ironfortified infant formula, or portions of 

both, must be served for the entire first 

year. Meals containing breastmilk and 

meals containing iron-fortified infant 

formula supplied by the school are 

eligible for reimbursement. However, 

infant formula provided by a parent (or 

guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by 

the infant’s mother, during a visit to the 

school, contribute to a reimbursable 

lunch only when the school supplies at 

least one component of the infant’s 

meal. 

(iv) Solid foods. For infants ages 4 

through 7 months, solid foods of an 

appropriate texture and consistency are 

required only when the infant is 

developmentally ready to accept them. 

The school should consult with the 

infant’s parent (or guardian) in making 

the decision to introduce solid foods. 

Solid foods should be introduced one at 

a time, on a gradual basis, with the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

intent of ensuring the infant’s health 

and nutritional well-being. 

(v) Infant meal pattern. Infant lunches 

must include, at a minimum, each of the 

food components indicated in Lunch 

Pattern for Infants table in the amount 

that is appropriate for the infant’s age. 

For some breastfed infants who 

regularly consume less than the 

minimum amount of breastmilk per 

feeding, a serving of less than the 

minimum amount of breastmilk may be 

offered. In these situations, additional 

breastmilk must be offered if the infant 

is still hungry. Lunches may include 

portions of breastmilk and iron-fortified 

infant formula as long as the total 

number of ounces meets, or exceeds, the 

minimum amount required of this food 

component. Similarly, to meet the 

component requirements for vegetables 

and fruits, portions of both may be 

served. Infant lunches are reimbursable 

when schools provide all of the 

components in the Lunch Pattern for 

Infants table that the infant is 

developmentally ready to accept. 

5. In § 210.18: 

a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2)(ii), (c), 

(g)(2), (i)(3)(ii), and (m); and 

b. Remove paragraph (h)(2) and 

redesignate paragraph (h)(3), (h)(4), 

(h)(5), and (h)(6) as paragraphs (h)(2), 

(h)(3), (h)(4), and (h)(5). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 210.18 Administrative reviews. 

(a) General. Each State agency must 

follow the requirements of this section 

to conduct administrative reviews of 

school food authorities serving meals 

under parts 210 and 220 of this chapter. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Performance Standard 2—Meal 

Requirements. Reimbursable lunches 

meet the meal requirements in § 210.10 

of this chapter, as applicable to the age/ 

grade group reviewed. Reimbursable 

breakfasts meet the meal requirements 

in § 220.8 of this chapter, as applicable 

to the age/grade group reviewed. 

* * * * * 

(c) Timing of reviews. State agencies 

must conduct administrative reviews of 

all school food authorities participating 

in the NSLP and/or SBP at least once 

during a 3-year review cycle. For each 

State agency, the first 3-year review 

cycle will start the school year that 

begins on July 1, 2012 and ends on June 

30, 2013. Administrative reviews and 

follow-up reviews must be conducted as 

follows: 

(1) Administrative reviews. At a 

minimum, State agencies must conduct 

administrative reviews of all school 

food authorities at least once during 

each 3-year review cycle, provided that 

each school food authority is reviewed 

at least once every 4 years. The on-site 

portion of the administrative review 

must be completed during the school 

year in which the review was begun. 

(2) Exceptions. FNS may, on an 

individual school food authority basis, 

approve written requests for 1-year 

extensions to the 3-year review cycle 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section if FNS determines this 3-year 

cycle requirement conflicts with 

efficient State agency management of 

the Programs. 

(3) Follow-up reviews. The State 

agency is encouraged to conduct first 

follow-up reviews in the same school 

year as the administrative review. The 

first follow-up review must be 

conducted no later than December 31 of 

the school year following the 

administrative review. Subsequent 

follow-up reviews must be scheduled in 

accordance with paragraph (i)(5) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2563 

(g) * * * 

(2) Performance Standard 2 

(Reimbursable lunches meet the meal 

requirements in § 210.10 of this chapter, 

as applicable to the age/grade group 

reviewed. Reimbursable breakfasts meet 

the meal requirements in § 220.8 of this 

chapter, as applicable to the age/grade 

group reviewed). When reviewing 

meals, the State agency must: 

(i) For the day of the review, observe 

the serving line(s) to determine whether 

all food components and food quantities 

required under § 210.10, as applicable, 

and § 220.8, as applicable, are offered. 

(ii) For the day of the review, observe 

a significant number of the Program 

meals counted at the point of service for 

each type of serving line to determine 

whether the meals selected by the 

students contain the food components 

and food quantities required for a 

reimbursable meal under § 210.10, as 

applicable, and § 220.8, as applicable. If 

visual observation suggests that 

quantities offered are insufficient or 

excessive, the State agency must require 

the reviewed school(s) to provide 

documentation demonstrating that the 

required amounts of each food 

component were available for service for 

each day of the review period. 

(iii) Review menu and production 

records for a minimum of ten operating 

days (specified by the State agency); 

such review must determine whether all 

food components and food quantities 

required under § 210.10, as applicable, 

and § 220.8, as applicable, of this 

chapter have been offered. 

(iv) Conduct a nutrient analysis of the 

meals for students in age/grade groups 

K and above to determine whether the 

meals offered meet the calorie, sodium, 

and saturated fat requirements in 

§ 210.10 and § 220.8 of this chapter, as 

applicable. The State agency must 

conduct the nutrient analysis in 

accordance with the procedures 

established in § 210.10(i) of this part. 

Until instructed by the Secretary, a 

nutrient analysis for the meals offered to 

preschoolers is not required. The State 

agency must also review nutrition 

labeling or manufacturer specifications 

for products or ingredients used to 

prepare school meals to verify they 

contain zero grams (less than 0.5 grams) 

of trans fat per serving. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) For Performance Standard 2—10 

percent or more of the total number of 

Program lunches or Program breakfasts 

observed in a school food authority are 

missing one or more of the food 

components required under parts 210 

and 220. 

* * * * * 

(m) Fiscal action. Fiscal action for 

violations identified during an 

administrative review or any follow-up 

reviews must be taken in accordance 

with the provisions in § 210.19(c) of this 

part. 

(1) Performance Standard I violations. 

A State agency is required to take fiscal 

action for all violations of the critical 

areas of Performance Standard 1. The 

State agency may limit fiscal action 

from the point corrective action occurs 

back through the beginning of the 

review period for errors identified under 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(B) and 

(g)(1)(i)(C) of this section, provided 

corrective action occurs. 

(2) Performance Standard 2 

violations. A State agency is required to 

take fiscal action for violations of the 

critical areas of Performance Standard 2 

as follows: 

(i) For food component violations 

cited under paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section, the State agency must take 

fiscal action and require the school food 

authority and/or school reviewed to take 

corrective action for the missing 

component. If a corrective action plan is 

in place, the State agency may limit 

fiscal action from the point corrective 

action occurs back through the 

beginning of the review period for errors 

identified under paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) For repeated violations involving 

vegetable subgroups and milk type cited 

under paragraph (g)(2) of this section, 

the State agency must take fiscal action 

provided that: 

(A) Technical assistance has been 

given by the State agency; 

(B) Corrective action has been 

previously required and monitored by 

the State agency; and 

(C) The school food authority remains 

in noncompliance with the meal 

requirements established in parts 210 

and 220 of this chapter. 

(iii) For violations involving food 

quantities and whole grains cited under 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section and for 

violations of calorie, saturated fat, 

sodium, and trans fat requirements cited 

under paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this 

section, the State agency has discretion 

to apply fiscal action provided that: 

(A) Technical assistance has been 

given by the State agency; 

(B) Corrective action has been 

previously required and monitored by 

the State agency; and 

(C) The school food authority remains 

in noncompliance with the meal 

requirements established in parts 210 

and 220 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 210.19: 

a. Remove paragraph (a)(1) and 

redesignate paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), 

(a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) as paragraph 

(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5); and 

b. Revise paragraphs (c) introductory 

text, (c)(1) and (c)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 210.19 Additional responsibilities. 

* * * * * 

(c) Fiscal action. State agencies are 

responsible for ensuring Program 

integrity at the school food authority 

level. State agencies must take fiscal 

action against school food authorities 

for Claims for Reimbursement that are 

not properly payable, including, if 

warranted, the disallowance of funds for 

failure to take corrective action to 

comply with the meal requirements in 

parts 210 and 220 of this chapter. In 

taking fiscal action, State agencies must 

use their own procedures within the 

constraints of this Part and must 

maintain all records pertaining to action 

taken under this section. The State 

agency may refer to FNS for assistance 

in making a claim determination under 

this part. 

(1) Definition. Fiscal action includes, 

but is not limited to, the recovery of 

overpayment through direct assessment 

or offset of future claims, disallowance 

of overclaims as reflected in unpaid 

Claims for Reimbursement, submission 

of a revised Claim for Reimbursement, 

and correction of records to ensure that 

unfiled Claims for Reimbursement are 

corrected when filed. Fiscal action also 

includes disallowance of funds for 

failure to take corrective action to meet 

the meal requirements in Parts 210 and 

220 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(6) Exceptions. The State agency need 

not disallow payment or collect an 

overpayment when any review or audit 

reveals that a school food authority is 

approving applications which indicate 

that the households’ incomes are within 

the Income Eligibility Guidelines issued 

by the Department or the applications 

contain Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program or TANF case 

numbers or FDPIR case numbers or 

other FDPIR identifiers but the 

applications are missing the information 

specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the 

definition of Documentation in § 245.2 

of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 210.21 [Amended] 

7. In § 210.21, amend paragraph (e) by 

removing the phrase ‘‘paragraph 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(m)(1)(ii) of this section’’ and adding in 

its place the phrase ‘‘§ 210.10(d)(4)) of 

this chapter.’’ 

8. Revise § 210.30 to read as follows: 

§ 210.30 State agency and Regional office 

addresses. 

School food authorities and schools 

desiring information about the Program 

should contact their State educational 

agency or the appropriate FNS Regional 

Office at the address or telephone 

number listed on the FNS Web site 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd). 

9. In Appendix B to part 210: 

a. Amend paragraph (b)(1) by 

removing from the fourth sentence the 

words ‘‘, and the public by notice in the 

Federal Register as indicated below 

under paragraph (b)(3) of this section;’’ 

b. Amend paragraph (b)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘as indicated under 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section’’ from the 

last sentence. 

c. Remove paragraph (b)(3) and 

redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as 

paragraph (b)(3); and 

d. Revise the first sentence of newly 

redesignated paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

Appendix B to Part 210—Categories of 

Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Written petitions should be sent to the 

Chief, Nutrition Promotion and Training 

Branch, Child Nutrition Division, FNS, 

USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 632, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22302.* * * 

* * * * * 

PART 220—SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM 

10. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 220 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779. 

11. In § 220.2: 

a. Amend the definition of Breakfast 

by removing the word ‘‘nutritional’’ and 

adding in its place the word ‘‘meal’’, 

b. Remove the definition of Menu 

item and the definition of Nutrient 

Standard Menu Planning/Assisted 

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning; 

c. Revise the definition of School 

week; and 

d. Add the definition of Whole grains 

and placing the definition in 

alphabetical order. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 220.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

School week means the period of time 

used to determine compliance with the 

meal requirements in § 220.8. The 

period must be a normal school week of 

five consecutive days; however, to 

accommodate shortened weeks resulting 

from holidays and other scheduling 

needs, the period must be a minimum 

of three consecutive days and a 

maximum of seven consecutive days. 

Weeks in which school breakfasts are 

offered less than three times must be 

combined with either the previous or 

the coming week. 

* * * * * 

Whole grains means grains that 

consist of the intact, ground, cracked, or 

flaked grain seed whose principal 

anatomical components—the starchy 

endosperm, germ and bran—are present 

in the same relative proportions as they 

exist in the intact grain seed. Whole 

grain-rich products must conform to 

FNS guidance to count toward the 

grains component. 

* * * * * 

12. Revise § 220.8 to read as follows: 

§ 220.8 Meal requirements for breakfasts. 

(a) General. School food authorities 

must ensure that participating schools 

provide nutritious, well-balanced, and 

age-appropriate breakfasts to all the 

children they serve to improve their diet 

and safeguard their health. School 

breakfasts offered to children age 5 and 

older must meet, at a minimum, the 

meal requirements in paragraph (b) of 

this section. Schools must follow a foodbased menu planning approach and 

produce enough food to offer each child 

the quantities specified in the meal 

pattern established in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each age/grade group 

served in the school. In addition, school 

breakfasts must meet the dietary 

specifications in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Schools offering breakfasts to 

children ages 1 to 4 and infants must 

meet the meal pattern requirements in 

paragraph (n) of this section. 

(b) Meal requirements for school 

breakfasts. School breakfasts for 

children ages 5 and older must reflect 

food and nutrition requirements 

specified by the Secretary. Compliance 

with these requirements is measured as 

follows: 

(1) On a daily basis: 

(i) Meals offered to each age/grade 

group must include the food 

components and food quantities 

specified in the meal pattern in 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(ii) Food products or ingredients used 

to prepare meals must contain zero 

grams of trans fat per serving or a 

minimal amount of naturally-occurring 

trans fat; and 

(iii) Meals selected by each student 

must have the number of food 

components required for a reimbursable 

meal and include at least one fruit or 

vegetable. 

(2) Over a 5-day school week: 

(i) Average calorie content of the 

meals offered to each age/grade group 

must be within the minimum and 

maximum calorie levels specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section; 

(ii) Average saturated fat content of 

the meals offered to each age/grade 

group must be less than 10 percent of 

total calories; 

(iii) Average sodium content of the 

meals offered to each age/grade group 

must not exceed the maximum level 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(c) Meal pattern for school breakfasts. 

A school must offer the food 

components and quantities required in 

the breakfast meal pattern established in 

the following table: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2565 

(1) Age/grade groups. Schools must 

plan menus for students using the 

following age/grade groups: Grades K–5 

(ages 5–10), grades 6–8 (ages 11–13), 

and grades 9–12 (ages 14–18). If an 

unusual grade configuration in a school 

prevents the use of the established age/ 

grade groups, students in grades K–5 

and grades 6–8 may be offered the same 

food quantities at breakfast provided 

that the calorie and sodium standards 

for each age/grade group are met. No 

customization of the established age/ 

grade groups is allowed. 

(2) Food components. Schools must 

offer students in each age/grade group 

the food components specified in meal 

pattern in paragraph (c). Food 

component descriptions in § 210.10 of 

this chapter apply to this Program. A 

serving of non-starchy vegetables may 

be offered in place of fruits at breakfast. 

Only pasteurized full-strength fruit and 

vegetable juice may be used, and may be 

credited to meet no more than one-half 

of the fruits component. 

(3) Food components in outlying 

areas. Schools in American Samoa, 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may 

serve a vegetable such as yams, 

plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the 

grains component. 

(4) Production and menu records. 

Schools or school food authorities, as 

applicable, must keep production and 

menu records for the meals they 

produce. These records must show how 

the meals offered contribute to the 

required food components and food 

quantities for each age/grade group 

every day. Labels or manufacturer 

specifications for food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals must indicate zero grams of trans 

fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams). 

Schools or school food authorities must 

maintain records of the latest nutritional 

analysis of the school menus conducted 

by the State agency. Production and 

menu records must be maintained in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

(d) Fluid milk requirement. A serving 

of fluid milk as a beverage or on cereal 

or used in part for each purpose must 

be offered for breakfasts. Schools must 

offer students a variety of fluid milk. 

Milk must be fat-free or low-fat. Milk 

with higher fat content is not allowed. 

Fat-free fluid milk may be flavored or 

unflavored, and low-fat fluid milk must 

be unflavored. Lactose-free fluid milk 

may also be offered. Schools must also 

comply with other applicable fluid milk 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.028</GPH>
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in § 210.10(d)(1), 

§ 210.10(d)(2), § 210.10(d)(3), and 

§ 210.10(d)(4) of this chapter. 

(e) Offer versus serve. School 

breakfasts must offer daily the four food 

components specified in the meal 

pattern in paragraph (c) of this section. 

At the option of the school food 

authority, each school may allow 

students to decline food items they do 

not intend to consume. Under offer 

versus serve, the student may decline 

one item at breakfast but must select at 

least one fruit serving, or one vegetable 

serving (if a vegetable is offered in place 

of fruit). The price of a reimbursable 

breakfast does not change if a student 

does not take a food item or requests 

smaller portions. 

(f) Dietary specifications. (1) Calories. 

School breakfasts offered to each age/ 

grade group must meet, on average over 

the school week, the minimum and 

maximum calorie levels specified in the 

following table: 

CALORIE RANGES FOR BREAKFAST

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Minimum-maximum calories (kcal)a b ............................................................................... 350–500 400–550 450–600 

aThe average daily amount for a 5-day school must fall within the minimum and maximum levels. 

b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. 

(2) Saturated fat. School breakfasts 

offered to all age/grade groups must, on 

average over the school week, provide 

less than 10 percent of total calories 

from saturated fat. 

(3) Sodium. School breakfasts offered 

to each age/grade group must meet, on 

average over the school week, the levels 

of sodium specified in the following 

table: 

(4) Trans fat. Food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals must contain zero grams of trans 

fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving. 

Schools must add the trans fat 

specification and request the required 

documentation (nutrition label or 

manufacturer specifications) in their 

procurement contracts. Documentation 

for food products and food ingredients 

must indicate zero grams of trans fat per 

serving. Meats that contain a minimal 

amount of naturally-occurring trans fats 

are allowed in the school meal 

programs. 

(g) Compliance assistance. The State 

agency and school food authority must 

provide technical assistance and 

training to assist schools in planning 

breakfasts that meet the meal pattern in 

paragraph (c) of this section and the 

calorie, saturated fat, sodium, and trans 

fat specifications established in 

paragraph (f) of this section. Compliance 

assistance may be offered during annual 

training, onsite visits, and/or 

administrative reviews. 

(h) State Agency responsibilities for 

monitoring dietary specifications. (1) 

Calories, saturated fat, and sodium. As 

part of the administrative review 

authorized under § 210.18 of this 

chapter, State agencies must conduct a 

nutrient analysis for the school(s) 

selected for review to evaluate the 

average levels of calories, saturated fat, 

and sodium of the breakfasts offered 

during the review period. The nutrient 

analysis must be conducted in 

accordance with the procedures 

established in section 210.10(i) of this 

chapter. State agencies must also review 

nutrition labeling or manufacturer 

specifications for products or 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals to verify they contain zero grams 

of trans fat per serving. If the results of 

the review indicate that the school 

breakfasts are not meeting the standards 

for calories, saturated fat, sodium, or 

trans fat levels specified in paragraph (f) 

of this section, the State agency or 

school food authority must provide 

technical assistance and require the 

reviewed school to develop a corrective 

action plan. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2567 

(2) Trans fat. During an 

administrative review, State agencies 

must verify that the food products or 

ingredients used by the reviewed 

school(s) contain zero grams of trans fat 

(less than 0.5 grams) per serving. 

(i) State agency responsibilities for 

nutrient analysis. State agencies must 

conduct a nutrient analysis of all foods 

offered in a reimbursable breakfast by a 

school selected for administrative 

review to determine the average levels 

of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

the meals offered over a school week. 

The analysis must be conducted in 

accordance with the procedures 

established in § 210.10(i) of this chapter. 

(j) State agency’s responsibilities for 

compliance monitoring. Compliance 

with the meal requirements in 

paragraph (b) will be monitored by the 

State agency through administrative 

reviews authorized in § 210.18 of this 

chapter. 

(k) Menu choices at breakfast. The 

requirements in § 210.10(k) of this 

chapter apply to this Program. 

(l) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable meals. The 

requirements in § 210.10(m) of this 

chapter apply to this Program. 

(m) Nutrition disclosure. The 

requirements in § 210.10(n) of this 

chapter apply to this Program. 

(n) Breakfasts for preschoolers and 

infants. (1) Nutrition standards for 

breakfasts for children age 1 to 4. Until 

otherwise instructed by the Secretary, 

breakfasts for preschoolers, when 

averaged over a school week, must meet 

the nutrition standards and the 

appropriate nutrient and calorie levels 

in this section. The nutrition standards 

are: 

(i) Provision of one-fourth of the 

Recommended Dietary Allowances 

(RDA) for protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamin A and vitamin C in the 

appropriate levels (see paragraph (n)(2) 

of this section); 

(ii) Provision of the breakfast energy 

allowances (calories) for children in the 

appropriate levels (see paragraph (n)(2) 

of this section); 

(iii) The following dietary 

recommendations: 

(A) Eat a variety of foods; 

(B) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total 

calories; 

(C) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 

percent of total calories; 

(D) Choose a diet low in cholesterol; 

(E) Choose a diet with plenty of grain 

products, vegetables, and fruits; and 

(F) Choose a diet moderate in salt and 

sodium. 

(iv) The following measures of 

compliance: 

(A) Limit the percent of calories from 

total fat to 30 percent of the actual 

number of calories offered; 

(B) Limit the percent of calories from 

saturated fat to less than 10 percent of 

the actual number of calories offered; 

(C) Reduce sodium and cholesterol 

levels; and 

(D) Increase the level of dietary fiber. 

(v) School food authorities must 

follow the traditional food-based menu 

planning approach to plan breakfasts for 

preschoolers and provide daily the food 

components and quantities specified in 

paragraph (n)(3) of this section. 

(vi) Schools must keep production 

and menu records for the breakfasts they 

produce. These records must show how 

the breakfasts contribute to the required 

food components and food quantities 

every school day. In addition, these 

records must show how the breakfasts 

contribute to the nutrition standards in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this section and the 

appropriate calorie and nutrient levels 

in paragraph (n)(2) of this section over 

the school week. Schools or school food 

authorities must maintain records of the 

latest nutritional analysis of the school 

menus conducted by the State agency. 

(2) Nutrient and calorie levels for 

breakfasts for preschoolers. Under the 

traditional food-based menu planning 

approach, the required levels are: 

(3) Meal pattern for preschoolers. (i) 

Food items. Schools must offer these 

food items in at least the portions 

required for each age group: 

(A) A serving of fluid milk as a 

beverage or on cereal or used partly for 

both; 

(B) A serving of fruit or vegetable or 

both, or full-strength fruit or vegetable 

juice; and 

(C) Two servings from one of the 

following components or one serving 

from each component: 

(1) Grains/breads; and/or 

(2) Meat/meat alternate. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.030</GPH>
2568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Quantities for the traditional foodbased menu planning approach. At a minimum, schools must offer the food 

items in the quantities specified for the 

appropriate age/grade group in the 

following table: 

(iii) Offer versus serve. Schools must 

offer all four required food items. At the 

school food authority’s option, students 

in preschool may decline one of the four 

food items. The price of a reimbursable 

breakfast does not change if the student 

does not take a menu item or requests 

smaller portions. 

(iv) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable breakfasts. Schools 

must follow the requirements in 

§ 210.10(m) of this chapter. 

(4) Fluid milk requirement. A serving 

of fluid milk as a beverage or on cereal 

or used in part for each purpose must 

be offered for breakfasts. Schools must 

offer students in age group 1–2 and age 

group 3–4 fluid milk in a variety of fat 

contents. Schools may offer flavored or 

unflavored fluid milk and lactose-free 

fluid milk. All milk served in the 

Program must be pasteurized fluid milk 

which meets State and local standards 

for such milk. All fluid milk must have 

vitamins A and D at levels specified by 

the Food and Drug Administration and 

must be consistent with State and local 

standards for such milk. Schools must 

also comply with other applicable milk 

requirements in § 210.10(d)(2), 

§ 210.10(d)(3), and § 210.10(d)(4) of this 

chapter. 

(5) Additional foods. Schools may 

offer additional foods with breakfasts to 

children over one year of age. 

(6) Menu choices at breakfast. Schools 

must follow the requirements in 

§ 210.10(l) of this chapter. 

(7) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable meals. Schools must 

follow the requirements in § 210.10(m) 

of this chapter. 

(8) Nutrition disclosure. Schools must 

follow the requirements in § 210.10(n) 

of this chapter. 

(9) State agency’s responsibilities for 

monitoring breakfasts. As part of the 

administrative review authorized under 

§ 210.18(g)(2)of this chapter, State 

agencies must evaluate compliance with 

the meal pattern requirements (food 

components and quantities) in 

paragraph (n)(3) of this section. If the 

meals do not meet the requirements of 

this section, the State agency or school 

food authority must provide technical 

assistance and require the reviewed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2569 

school to take corrective action. In 

addition, the State agency must take 

fiscal action as authorized in 

§ 210.18(m) and 210.19(c) of this 

chapter. 

(10) Requirements for the infant 

breakfast pattern. (i) Feeding breakfasts 

to infants. Breakfasts served to infants 

ages birth through 11 months must meet 

the requirements described in paragraph 

(n)(11)(iv) of this section. Foods 

included in the breakfast must be of a 

texture and a consistency that are 

appropriate for the age of the infant 

being served. The foods must be served 

during a span of time consistent with 

the infant’s eating habits. For those 

infants whose dietary needs are more 

individualized, exceptions to the meal 

pattern must be made in accordance 

with the requirements found in 

§ 210.10(m) of this chapter. 

(ii) Breastmilk and iron-fortified 

formula. Either breastmilk or ironfortified infant formula, or portions of 

both, must be served for the entire first 

year. Meals containing breastmilk and 

meals containing iron-fortified infant 

formula supplied by the school are 

eligible for reimbursement. However, 

infant formula provided by a parent (or 

guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by 

the infant’s mother, during a visit to the 

school, contribute to a reimbursable 

breakfast only when the school supplies 

at least one component of the infant’s 

meal. 

(iii) Solid foods. For infants ages 4 

through 7 months, solid foods of an 

appropriate texture and consistency are 

required only when the infant is 

developmentally ready to accept them. 

The school should consult with the 

infant’s parent (or guardian) in making 

the decision to introduce solid foods. 

Solid foods should be introduced one at 

a time, on a gradual basis, with the 

intent of ensuring the infant’s health 

and nutritional well-being. 

(iv) Infant meal pattern. Infant 

breakfasts must have, at a minimum, 

each of the food components indicated, 

in the amount that is appropriate for the 

infant’s age. For some breastfed infants 

who regularly consume less than the 

minimum amount of breastmilk per 

feeding, a serving of less than the 

minimum amount of breastmilk may be 

offered. In these situations, additional 

breastmilk must be offered if the infant 

is still hungry. Breakfasts may include 

portions of breastmilk and iron-fortified 

infant formula as long as the total 

number of ounces meets, or exceeds, the 

minimum amount required of this food 

component. Similarly, to meet the 

component requirement for vegetables 

and fruit, portions of both may be 

served. 

(A) Birth through 3 months. 4 to 6 

fluid ounces of breastmilk or ironfortified infant formula—only 

breastmilk or iron-fortified formula is 

required to meet the infant’s nutritional 

needs. 

(B) 4 through 7 months. Breastmilk or 

iron-fortified formula is required. Some 

infants may be developmentally ready 

for solid foods of an appropriate texture 

and consistency. Breakfasts are 

reimbursable when schools provide all 

of the components in the meal pattern 

that the infant is developmentally ready 

to accept. 

(1) 4 to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk 

or iron-fortified infant formula; and 

(2) 0 to 3 tablespoons of iron-fortified 

dry infant cereal. 

(C) 8 through 11 months. Breastmilk 

or iron-fortified formula and solid foods 

of an appropriate texture and 

consistency are required. 

(1) 6 to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk 

or iron-fortified infant formula; and 

(2) 2 to 4 tablespoons of iron-fortified 

dry infant cereal; and 

(3) 1 to 4 tablespoons of fruit or 

vegetable. 

(v) Infant meal pattern table. The 

minimum amounts of food components 

to serve to infants, as described in 

paragraph (n)(11)(iv) of this section, are: 

14. Paragraph 220.13 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Amend paragraph (f)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘§ 210.30’’ wherever 

it appears and adding in its place the 

words ‘‘§ 210.29’’; and 

b. Revise paragraph (f)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 220.13 Special responsibilities of State 

agencies. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUSEP13JA11.032</GPH>
2570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(3) For the purposes of compliance 

with the meal requirements in § 220.8, 

the State agency must follow the 

provisions specified in § 210.18(g)(2) of 

this chapter, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A to Part 220 [Amended] 

15. Amend Appendix A to part 220 by 

removing section I. Formulated GrainFruit Products in its entirety, and by 

removing the Roman numeral ‘‘II.’’ from 

the words ‘‘II. Alternate Protein 

Products’’. 

Dated: January 3, 2011. 

Kevin Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–485 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS