4088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule updates the 

meal patterns and nutrition standards 

for the National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast Programs to align them 

with the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. This rule requires most 

schools to increase the availability of 

fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fatfree and low-fat fluid milk in school 

meals; reduce the levels of sodium, 

saturated fat and trans fat in meals; and 

meet the nutrition needs of school 

children within their calorie 

requirements. These improvements to 

the school meal programs, largely based 

on recommendations made by the 

Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academies, are expected to enhance the 

diet and health of school children, and 

help mitigate the childhood obesity 

trend. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective March 26, 2012. 

Compliance date: Compliance with 

the provisions of this rule must begin 

July 1, 2012, except as otherwise noted 

on the implementation table provided in 

the preamble under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wagoner or Marisol 

Aldahondo-Aponte, Policy and Program 

Development Branch, Child Nutrition 

Division, Food and Nutrition Service at 

(703) 305–2590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

This final rule modifies several key 

proposed requirements to respond to 

commenter concerns and facilitate 

successful implementation of the 

requirements at the State and local 

levels. The rule phases in many of the 

changes to help ensure that all 

stakeholders—the children, the schools, 

and their supply chains—have time to 

adapt. Most notably, this final rule 

provides additional time for 

implementation of the breakfast 

requirements and modifies those 

requirements in a manner that reduces 

the estimated costs of breakfast changes, 

as compared to the proposed rule. As a 

result, the final rule is estimated to add 

$3.2 billion to school meal costs over 

5 years, considerably less than the 

estimated cost of the proposed rule. 

When considered in the context of 

other related provisions of the Healthy 

Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010, 

sufficient resources are expected to be 

available to school food authorities to 

cover the additional costs of updated 

meal offerings to meet the new 

standards. 

Specifically, in addition to improving 

nutritional quality, the HHFKA 

mandated that beginning July 1, 2011, 

revenue streams for a la carte foods 

relative to their costs be at least as high 

as the revenue streams for Program 

meals compared to their costs. 

Consequently schools should receive 

over $1 billion a year in new food 

revenues beginning in School Year 

2011–2012. That will help schools work 

toward implementing the new standards 

effective the following year, i.e., July 1, 

2012. In addition, USDA estimates that 

the ‘‘School Food Authorities revenues’’ 

rule will increase participation in 

school meal programs by 800,000 

children. 

In addition, the six-cent per lunch 

performance-based reimbursement 

increase included in the HHFKA will 

provide additional revenue beginning 

October 1, 2012. The Congressional 

Budget Office estimated about $1.5 

billion over 5 years will be provided in 

performance-based funding. 

I. Background 

The Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act (NSLA) in Section 

9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requires 

that school meals reflect the latest 

‘‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans’’ 

(Dietary Guidelines). In addition, 

section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–296, 

HHFKA) amended Section 4(b) of the 

NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1753(b), to require the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) to 

issue regulations to update the meal 

patterns and nutrition standards for 

school lunches and breakfasts based on 

the recommendations issued by the 

Food and Nutrition Board of the 

National Research Council of the 

National Academies of Science, part of 

the Institute of Medicine (IOM). On 

January 13, 2011, USDA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 2494) to update the meal patterns 

and nutrition standards for the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the 

School Breakfast Program (SBP) to align 

them with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. 

The proposed rule sought to increase 

the availability of fruits, vegetables, 

whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat 

fluid milk in the school menu; reduce 

the levels of sodium, saturated fat and 

trans fat in school meals; and meet the 

nutrition needs of school children 

within their calorie requirements. The 

intent of the proposed rule was to 

provide nutrient-dense meals (high in 

nutrients and low in calories) that better 

meet the dietary needs of school 

children and protect their health. The 

proposed changes, designed for meals 

offered to school children in grades 

Kindergarten (K) to 12, were largely 

based on the IOM recommendations set 

forth in the report ‘‘School Meals: 

Building Blocks for Healthy Children’’ 

(October 2009). 

In summary, the January 2011 

proposed rule sought to improve 

lunches and breakfasts by requiring 

schools to: 

• Offer fruits and vegetables as two 

separate meal components; 

• Offer fruit daily at breakfast and 

lunch; 

• Offer vegetables daily at lunch, 

including specific vegetable subgroups 

weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, 

and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines) and a limited quantity of 

starchy vegetables throughout the week; 

• Offer whole grains: half of the 

grains would be whole grain-rich upon 

implementation of the rule and all 

grains would be whole-grain rich two 

years post implementation; 

• Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at 

breakfast; 

• Offer fluid milk that is fat-free 

(unflavored and flavored) and low-fat 

(unflavored only); 

• Offer meals that meet specific 

calorie ranges for each age/grade group; 

• Reduce the sodium content of meals 

gradually over a 10-year period through 

two intermediate sodium targets at two 

and four years post implementation; 

• Prepare meals using food products 

or ingredients that contain zero grams of 

trans fat per serving; 

• Require students to select a fruit or 

a vegetable as part of the reimbursable 

meal; 

• Use a single food-based menu 

planning approach; and 

• Use narrower age/grade groups for 

menu planning. 

In addition, the proposed rule sought 

to improve school meals by requiring 

State agencies (SAs) to: 

• Conduct a nutritional review of 

school lunches and breakfasts as part of 

the administrative review process; 

• Determine compliance with the 

meal patterns and dietary specifications 

based on a review of menu and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4089 

production records for a two-week 

period; and 

• Review school lunches and 

breakfasts every 3 years, consistent with 

the HHFKA. 

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines were 

released on January 31, 2011, after 

USDA published the proposed rule. On 

March 21, 2011 USDA issued a Notice 

in the Federal Register (76 FR 15225) 

seeking public comment on the need to 

modify the proposed rule to reflect the 

2010 Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations to consume redorange vegetables and protein 

subgroups: (1) Seafood; (2) meat, poultry 

and eggs, and (3) nuts, seeds, and soy 

products. The public comments to the 

Notice (76 FR 15225) were added to the 

proposed rule docket and all comments 

associated with the proposed rule were 

considered in preparing this final rule. 

USDA received a total of 133,268 

public comments during the comment 

period January 13–April 13, 2011. This 

total included several single 

submissions with thousands of 

comments. The types of comments 

received included 7,107 unique letters, 

122,715 form letters from 159 mass mail 

campaigns, 3,353 non-germane letters, 

and 93 duplicates. Comments were 

analyzed using computer software that 

facilitated the identification of the key 

issues addressed by the commenters, as 

well as by USDA policy officials. 

Although USDA considered all 

comments, the description and analysis 

in this final rule preamble focuses on 

the most frequent comments and those 

that influenced revisions to the 

proposed rule, and discusses 

modifications made to the proposed rule 

in response to public input. USDA 

greatly appreciates the public comments 

as they have been essential in 

developing a final rule that is expected 

to improve school meals in a sound and 

practical manner. To view all public 

comments on the proposed rule go to 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

public submissions under docket 

number FNS–2007–0038. A Summary of 

Public Comments is available as 

supporting material under the docket 

folder summary. 

Note: This final rule does not update the 

Pre-K school meal patterns. These are under 

review and will be updated in a future 

rulemaking amending regulations 

implementing the USDA’s Child and Adult 

Care Food Program. However, two provisions 

in this final rule, menu planning approach 

and fluid milk requirements, impact Pre-K 

meals as discussed later in this preamble. 

II. Public Comments and USDA 

Response 

USDA received comments from 

nutrition, health, and child advocates at 

the national, state and local levels; SAs 

that administer the school meal 

programs; school districts/boards; 

schools; school food service staff; 

superintendents, principals, and 

teachers; food manufacturers and 

distributors; food industry 

representatives; food service 

management companies; academia; 

nutritionists/dietitians; community 

organizations; parents and students; and 

many other interested groups and 

individuals. Overall, the comments 

provided were generally more 

supportive of the proposed rule than 

opposed. Comments from nutrition, 

health and child advocates; community 

organizations; academia; and parents 

favor the proposed rule, citing concern 

about the national childhood obesity 

problem and the increased likelihood of 

preventable diseases such as 

cardiovascular disease, high blood 

pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, and 

type 2 diabetes, all of which increase 

the cost of healthcare nationally. Many 

comments enthusiastically supported 

the increase in fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains, fat-free milk/low-fat milk in the 

school menus, and most other proposed 

changes designed to improve the 

nutritional quality of school meals. 

Comments from SAs and school food 

authorities (SFAs), food industry, 

industry representatives, food service 

management companies, and others in 

the public and private sectors associated 

with the operation of the school meals 

programs also supported improving 

school meals but voiced strong concerns 

about some aspects of the proposed rule. 

The proposed food quantities, 

meat/meat alternate component at 

breakfast, weekly vegetable subgroup 

requirement at lunch, starchy vegetables 

limit, sodium reductions, whole grains 

requirement, and frequency of 

administrative review were the parts of 

the proposal that prompted most of their 

concerns. Program operators also raised 

concerns about the rule cost and 

implementation timeline, the impact of 

the proposed changes on student 

participation in the meal programs, and 

the potential for increased plate waste if 

meals are not acceptable to students. A 

number of commenters suggested that 

USDA conduct additional research or 

pilot test the proposed changes before 

implementation. All of the above 

concerns are more prevalent in the SBP 

than the NSLP. Schools that operate the 

SBP voiced significant concern about 

the estimated 50 cents increase in food 

and labor costs for each reimbursable 

breakfast in FY 2015, when all the 

requirements will be in place as stated 

in the proposed rule. 

USDA has taken into consideration 

the different views expressed by 

commenters and seeks to be responsive 

to the concerns raised by stakeholders, 

especially those responsible for the 

management and day to day operation 

of the school meal programs. At the 

same time, we are mindful that the 

overweight and obesity epidemic 

affecting many children in America 

requires that all sectors of our society, 

including schools, help children make 

significant changes in their diet to 

improve their overall health and become 

productive adults. This final rule makes 

significant improvements to the NSLP 

and SBP to facilitate successful 

implementation of the requirements at 

the State and local levels. This final rule 

modifies several key proposed 

requirements to respond to commenter 

concerns as well as to address 

requirements of the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2012, Public Law 112–55. Most notably, 

this final rule provides additional time 

for implementation of the SBP 

requirements and modifies those 

requirements in a manner that reduces 

the estimated costs of breakfast changes, 

as compared to the proposed rule. 

No changes to the SBP meal pattern 

take effect immediately upon 

publication of this final rule, except 

limiting flavor to fat-free milk, and 

requiring the service of only fat-free and 

low-fat milk (the latter is a statutory 

requirement codified in the NSLA in the 

HHFKA. See the discussion on ‘‘Milk’’ 

for further details). Furthermore, this 

rule introduces selected requirements 

into the SBP beginning SY 2013–2014 

(the second year of implementation) to 

ease the estimated increase in breakfast 

costs and minimize impact on SBP 

operations. This approach is intended to 

enable program operators to concentrate 

on improving school lunches first and 

then focus on the breakfast changes. It 

also allows USDA to meet the statutory 

requirement to offer meals that reflect 

the Dietary Guidelines while being 

responsive to the concerns raised by 

program operators and other 

stakeholders. However, SFAs that are 

able to implement the new meal 

requirements concurrently in the SBP 

and NSLP are encouraged to do so with 

SA approval. 

Section G of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis discusses in greater detail the 

key differences between the proposed 

and final rules. Most of the estimated 

reduction in cost is due to the policy 

changes discussed above, including the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

phased in breakfast meal pattern 

requirements and the elimination of a 

separate meat component at breakfast, 

as well as more modest changes to the 

lunch meal pattern requirements’ grain 

and vegetable components. In addition 

to these policy changes, lower food 

inflation since preparation of the 

proposed rule cost estimate contributes 

to the reduction in the cost of the final 

rule compared to the proposed rule. 

The following is a summary of the key 

public comments on the proposed rule 

and USDA’s response. Public comments 

unrelated to the specific provisions of 

the rule (e.g., standards for cholesterol, 

dietary fiber, artificial sweeteners, 

caffeine) are not discussed here but are 

addressed in the Summary of Public 

Comments. For a more detailed 

discussion of the public comments see 

the Summary of Public Comments 

posted online at www.Regulations.gov. 

Menu Planning Approach 

Proposed Rule: Follow a single FoodBased Menu Planning (FBMP) approach. 

Comments: Nutrition, health and 

child advocates; community 

organizations; academia; parents; and 

SAs support the FBMP approach 

because it helps children easily identify 

the key food groups necessary for a 

well-balanced meal. According to a 

health advocate, FBMP also minimizes 

the opportunity to offer unhealthy foods 

that have been fortified to meet the 

nutrient requirements. SAs support a 

single menu planning approach as it 

supports a more cost effective delivery 

of training and technical assistance 

resources. 

However, a number of SFAs that 

currently use the Nutrient Standard 

Menu Planning (NSMP) and some 

school advocacy organizations, trade 

associations, food manufacturers, 

nutritionists, and other commenters 

suggested that NSMP be allowed as an 

option. SFAs that use NSMP claimed 

that they would still have to conduct a 

nutrient analysis to assess if they are 

meeting the new dietary specifications 

(calories, sodium, and saturated fat 

levels). Several commenters also 

claimed that NSMP schools are better 

able to control costs and that changing 

to FBMP would result in increased 

training costs. Some stated that 

eliminating NSMP decreases menu 

planning flexibility and menu variety. 

USDA Response: To ensure that 

school meals reflect the key food groups 

recommended by the Dietary 

Guidelines, this final rule establishes 

FBMP as the single menu planning 

approach for the NSLP (including for 

Pre-K meals) in SY 2012–2013. A single 

food-based menu planning approach 

simplifies menu planning, serves as a 

teaching tool to help children choose a 

balanced meal, and assures that 

students nationwide have access to key 

food groups recommended by the 

Dietary Guidelines. It also makes it 

easier for schools to communicate the 

meal improvements to parents and the 

community-at-large. Simplifying 

program management, training and 

monitoring is expected to result in 

program savings. Over 70 percent of the 

program operators currently use FBMP, 

and training and technical assistance 

resources will be available to help all 

schools successfully transition to the 

new meal patterns. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

about the estimated cost increase of the 

breakfast meal, this final rule gives 

those SBP program operators not 

currently using FBMP additional time to 

convert to this planning approach. SBP 

operators who are not currently using 

FBMP may continue with their current 

menu planning approach through SY 

2012–2013. However, all SBP operators 

must use a single FBMP approach 

beginning SY 2013–2014 (the second 

year of implementation). 

This final rule sets forth the new foodbased meal patterns in 7 CFR 210.10 for 

lunches and § 220.8 for breakfasts. In 

order to accommodate the extended 

implementation for non-FBMP 

operators, this final rule creates a new 

§ 220.23 that restates the nutrition 

standards and menu planning 

approaches that apply to all SBP 

operators in SY 2012–2013 only. 

Individual SFAs wishing to adopt the 

provisions of § 220.8 prior to the 

required implementation date specified 

therein may do so with the approval of 

the SA. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed FBMP 

approach and codifies the proposal 

under § 210.10(a)(1)(i) of the regulatory 

text for the NSLP and § 220.8(a)(1) for 

the SBP. Menu planning approaches 

applicable to the SBP in SY 2012–2013 

are under § 220.23(a)(5). 

Age/Grade Groups 

Proposed Rule: Plan lunches and 

breakfasts using age/grade groups K–5, 

6–8, and 9–12. 

Comments: A number of nutrition, 

health and child advocates; and 

dietitians agreed that the proposed 

age/grade groups would result in more 

age-appropriate school meals. They also 

supported the provision allowing 

schools to serve the same breakfast and 

lunch meal patterns for students in 

grades K through 8, provided that the 

meals meet the calorie, saturated fat, 

and sodium standards for each the of 

the age/grade groups. 

Several commenters argued the 

proposed meal patterns offer too much 

food, especially for young children. 

Some commenters recommended 

different age/grade groups, and an SA 

recommended that USDA retain the 

current age/grade groups. Some SFAs 

requested flexibility in the use of the 

age/grade groups (e.g., a one-grade level 

leeway). A number of commenters 

expressed concerns regarding use of the 

age/grade groups in the SBP, as schools 

generally serve K–12 students in the 

same line. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

requires schools to use the age/grade 

groups K–5, 6–8, and 9–12 to plan 

menus in the NSLP upon 

implementation of this rule in SY 2012– 

2013. These age/grade groups reflect 

predominant school grade 

configurations and are consistent with 

the IOM’s Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) 

groupings. This rule allows reasonable 

flexibility in the use of the age/grade 

groups and permits a school to use one 

meal pattern for students in grades K 

through 8 as food quantity requirements 

for groups K–5 and 6–8 overlap. In such 

a case, the school continues to be 

responsible for meeting the calorie, 

saturated fat, and sodium standards for 

each of the age/grade groups receiving 

the school meals. The following 

example illustrates this concept: 

Example: A school could offer all 

students in grade groups K–5 and 6–8 

the same lunch choices for the fruit, 

vegetable, grains, meat/meat alternate, 

and milk components because the 

quantity requirements are the same or 

overlap. Similarly, the calorie 

requirements for grades K–5 (550–650 

average calories per week) and grades 6– 

8 (600–700 average calories per week) 

overlap. Therefore, a school could offer 

both grade groups a range of 600–650 

average calories per week 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 the 

lower sodium standard that was 

developed for age/grades K–5 but would 

also meet the requirement for students 

in age/grades 6–8. 

In the SBP, the new age/grade groups 

take effect in SY 2013–2014 (the second 

year of implementation) to ease the 

burden on program operators. Until 

then, schools have the option to 

continue the age/grade group K–12 for 

planning breakfasts. Meals planned for 

the age/grade group K–12 must meet the 

nutrition standards developed for that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4091 

age/grade group, which have been 

moved from § 220.8 to a new § 220.23 of 

the regulatory text. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed age/grade 

groups and codifies the proposal under 

§ 210.10(c)(1) of the regulatory text for 

the NSLP and § 220.8(c)(1) for the SBP. 

Age/grade groups applicable to the SBP 

in SY 2012–2013 are under § 220.23(b) 

for nutrient standards menu planning, 

and under § 220.23(g) for food based 

menu planning. 

Meal Components 

Fruits 

Proposed Rule: Offer fruit as a 

separate food component at lunch daily. 

Increase the fruit and vegetable amounts 

at lunch and double the minimum 

required fruit quantity at breakfast. 

Allow schools to offer a non-starchy 

vegetable in place of fruit/fruit juice at 

breakfast. Allow frozen fruit without 

added sugar only. 

Comments: There is general support 

for the proposal to establish fruit as 

separate food component. Stakeholders 

such as nutrition, health and child 

advocates supported the proposal 

because they are concerned that 

children are not consuming the 

recommended intake of fruits. One 

major health advocate noted that it is 

possible to significantly increase the 

quantity of fruits and vegetables in the 

school menu in a cost effective way, 

stating that many schools already 

exceed the current NSLP meal 

requirements, and noting that of 

thousands of schools participating in 

the Alliance for a Healthier Generation’s 

Healthy School Program, 85 percent 

provide at least one fruit (fresh, canned, 

or frozen in fruit juice or light syrup) at 

breakfast and 72 percent provide at least 

four non-fried, no-added-sugars fruit or 

vegetable options daily. 

However, many commenters opposed 

the proposed minimum required fruit 

quantities, and were particularly 

concerned about the fruit requirement 

for breakfast. A number of commenters 

stated that one cup of fruit at breakfast 

is too much for young children to 

consume at one time and will result in 

significant plate waste. Commenters 

also emphasized that students usually 

have very little time to eat breakfast at 

school and are concerned about the 

logistics of offering more food through 

alternative breakfast delivery methods 

such as Breakfast in the Classroom or on 

the bus. In general, these commenters 

argued that the proposal to double the 

amount of fruit at breakfast would 

contribute to higher costs for food, 

labor, equipment, and storage. 

Regarding the types of fruit to be 

offered, several commenters supported 

the proposed limitation on added sugar 

in frozen fruit to limit the sources of 

discretionary calories. Some 

commenters recommended a 

prohibition on canned fruit in light 

syrup. Some program operators asked 

how to credit whole fresh fruit, and 

other commenters requested that the 

quantities in the meal patterns be 

changed from cups to servings to better 

account for fresh whole fruit. A few 

suggested that USDA adopt the 

HealthierUS School Challenge Gold 

Level requirement to serve fresh fruit 

twice per week with school meals. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

establishes fruits and vegetables as 

separate food components in the NSLP 

and adds a fruits requirement at lunch 

beginning SY 2012–2013. The intent of 

the new requirements is to promote the 

consumption of these fruits, as 

recommended by the Dietary 

Guidelines. Fruits (and vegetables) that 

are prepared without added solid fats, 

sugars, refined starches, and sodium are 

nutrient rich foods and supply 

important nutrients that are underconsumed by school children in the 

United States (including potassium and 

dietary fiber) with relatively little 

calories. 

This rule also gives program operators 

additional time to meet the required 

minimum fruit quantity increase in the 

SBP. Schools are required to offer 1 cup 

of fruit to all age/grade groups at 

breakfast beginning in SY 2014–2015 

(the third year of implementation). This 

modification gives program operators 

more time to prepare for this important 

change to SBP menus. This rule also 

gives schools the option to offer 

vegetables in place of all or part of the 

required fruit component for menu 

flexibility and as a potential cost control 

measure. However, the first two cups 

per week of any such substitution must 

be from the dark green, red/orange, 

beans and peas (legumes) or other 

vegetable subgroups. These vegetable 

subgroups have been identified as being 

under-consumed by school children, 

according to the IOM report. Starchy 

vegetables may also be offered in 

substitution of fruits, once the first two 

cups offering of non-starchy vegetables 

have been met. This change to the 

proposed rule allows schools flexibility 

and the option to offer vegetables in 

place of fruit in accordance with the 

substitution protocol specified here. 

Although schools must offer the full 

amount of the required food component, 

to minimize the potential for food waste 

in the NSLP and SBP, all students are 

allowed to select 1⁄2 cup of fruit for a 

reimbursable meal under Offer versus 

Serve (OVS), instead of requiring them 

to take the full fruit component. This 

change in the application of OVS with 

regard to the fruits and vegetables 

components is further discussed in 

‘‘Standards for Meals Selected by the 

Student (Offer versus Serve).’’ 

Schools may meet the fruit 

component at lunch and breakfast by 

offering fruit that is fresh; canned in 

fruit juice, water, or light syrup; frozen 

without added sugar, or dried. Through 

its USDA Foods Programs, USDA offers 

schools a range of fresh, frozen without 

added sugar, dried and canned fruits. 

Although 100 percent juice can be 

offered, no more than half of the permeal fruit component may be juice 

because it lacks dietary fiber and when 

consumed in excess can contribute extra 

calories. Schools should offer fresh fruit 

whenever possible. 

Although some commenters suggested 

that the meal patterns set the fruit and 

other food requirements as servings 

rather than cups, this final rule does not 

adopt this suggestion, as a serving can 

be any amount of food determined by 

the menu planner and does not ensure 

uniformity. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines 

recommended amounts were given in 

cups and ounce equivalents (oz. eq.), 

which are standard defined amounts. 

Menu planners must continue to use the 

Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition 

Programs to determine how to credit 

whole fruit. USDA will update the Food 

Buying Guide as soon as possible, and 

will also develop other technical 

assistance resources as needed. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed fruit 

requirements, with modifications, and 

codifies them under § 210.10(c) for the 

NSLP and under § 220.8(c) for the SBP. 

Fruit requirements applicable to the 

SBP in SY 2012–2013 are under 

§ 220.23(g). 

Vegetables 

Proposed Rule: Offer vegetables as a 

separate food component at lunch daily. 

Increase the variety of vegetables over 

the week to include the following 

subgroups: dark green, orange, legumes, 

and other as defined in the Dietary 

Guidelines. Limit starchy vegetables at 

lunch to 1 cup per week for all age/ 

grade groups. Allow non-starchy 

vegetables in place of fruit at breakfast. 

Comments: Nutrition, health and 

child advocates; community 

organizations; academia; and parents 

welcomed the proposal to divide fruits 

and vegetables into two separate 

components and expressed support for 

the proposed weekly vegetable 

requirements. Some of these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters stated the proposed 

increase in vegetable variety and 

quantity should positively impact 

overall consumption. 

State and local program operators, 

however, suggested that the vegetable 

subgroups be encouraged, rather than 

required (similar to the approach in the 

HealthierUS School Challenge 

guidelines). Some commenters stated 

that the vegetable subgroup 

requirements are too complicated. 

Others argued that children will not eat 

vegetables they are not familiar with 

and, therefore, the vegetable subgroup 

requirements will result in plate waste. 

Several commenters expressed concern 

that procuring some vegetable 

subgroups will be difficult and costly 

during specific times of the year in 

certain parts of the country. Others 

requested clarification regarding when 

beans should be considered a legume 

versus a meat alternate. 

Many State and local program 

operators opposed the starchy vegetable 

limit. They argued that all vegetables 

should be encouraged, and that a limit 

on starchy vegetables will lead to a 

decrease in vegetable consumption, or a 

decrease in participation in the NSLP. 

Some suggested that the weekly limit 

only apply to potatoes. Several 

suggested that instead of limiting 

starchy vegetables, USDA should 

prohibit French fries or deep-fried 

preparation methods for all vegetables. 

Others requested gradual introduction 

of the weekly limit on starchy 

vegetables. Many program operators 

argued that white potatoes are 

inexpensive and would need to be 

replaced by more expensive fruits and 

vegetables, which will be a costly strain 

on school/state budgets. A few asked 

that starchy vegetables in mixed dishes, 

such as soups, not count towards the 

weekly starchy vegetable limit. 

Nutrition and health advocates 

favored allowing non-starchy vegetables 

in place of fruit in the SBP. However, 

numerous commenters opposed 

disallowing starchy vegetables at 

breakfast. These commenters, including 

SFAs, food industry, and some parents, 

stated that starchy vegetables such as 

potatoes are affordable and popular, and 

complement many breakfast dishes. 

They also noted that potatoes supply 

potassium and other minerals, vitamins 

and fiber, and are naturally low in fat 

and sodium. Many stakeholders 

suggested that USDA ease the proposed 

restrictions on starchy vegetables. 

Program operators also addressed the 

use of salad bars to meet the vegetable 

requirement. They stated that salad bars 

are good ways to serve a wide variety of 

fruits and vegetables and are an effective 

strategy to increase children’s 

consumption of these food groups. 

However, they expressed concern that 

the proposed vegetable requirements 

increase challenges with or could 

discourage the use of self-serve salad 

bars. Schools asked how to determine if 

the required foods/portions are being 

served. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

establishes vegetables as a separate food 

component in the NSLP, and requires 

schools to offer all the vegetable 

subgroups identified by the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines (dark green, red/ 

orange, beans and peas (legumes), 

starchy, and other) over the course of 

the week at minimum required 

quantities as part of the lunch menus in 

SY 2012–2013. As required by the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law 

112–55 (FY 2012 Agriculture 

Appropriations Act), we are removing 

the proposed rule limit on starchy 

vegetables, and instead requiring 

schools to offer at least minimum 

quantities of all vegetable subgroups in 

the NSLP over the course of the week. 

This change encourages consumption 

from all vegetable subgroups, and is 

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines’ 

recommendation to increase variety in 

vegetable consumption. In addition, to 

be consistent with the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines classification of vegetable 

subgroups, this final rule expands the 

proposed orange vegetable subgroup to 

include red/orange vegetables. USDA 

asked commenters about this change in 

the vegetable subgroups in the Notice 

published by USDA in the Federal 

Register (76 CFR 15225) on March 21, 

2011 and there was no public 

opposition. 

This final rule also allows schools the 

option to offer vegetables in place of all 

or part of the fruits requirement at 

breakfast beginning July 1, 2014. This is 

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines’ 

recommendation to eat a variety of 

vegetables, especially dark green, red 

and orange vegetables, and beans and 

peas (legumes). This recommendation is 

applicable to the school meals because 

most vegetables and fruits are major 

contributors of nutrients that are underconsumed in the United States, 

including potassium and dietary fiber. 

Consumption of vegetables and fruits is 

also associated with reduced risk of 

many chronic diseases, including 

obesity, heart attack, stroke, and cancer. 

By providing more and a variety of 

vegetables in a nutrient-dense form 

(without added solid fats, sugars, 

refined starches, and sodium), schools 

help students obtain important nutrients 

and maintain a healthy weight. 

This final rule does not implement 

the proposed rule limitation on servings 

of starchy vegetables offered as part of 

the lunch and breakfast reimbursable 

meals. This change is in response to 

commenters’ concerns and the 

requirements of the FY 2012 Agriculture 

Appropriations Act, which specifically 

prevented USDA from adopting the IOM 

recommendation for setting maximum 

limits on starchy vegetables, providing 

for fiscal year 2012 USDA 

appropriations. Therefore, schools are 

allowed to offer any vegetable subgroup 

identified by the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines to meet the vegetables 

component required for each 

reimbursable school meal. The vegetable 

quantities in the lunch meal pattern 

have been modified to reflect this 

change to the proposal while remaining 

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines’ 

focus on increasing the intake of 

vegetables that are under-consumed. 

Commenters asked USDA to clarify 

when to credit beans and peas (legumes) 

toward the vegetable component. Local 

menu planners decide how to 

incorporate beans and peas (legumes) 

into the school meal but may not offer 

one serving of beans and peas (legumes) 

to meet the requirements for both 

vegetables and meat/meat alternate 

components. Beans and peas (legumes) 

can be credited toward the vegetable 

component because they are excellent 

sources of dietary fiber and nutrients 

such as folate and potassium. These 

nutrients are often low in the diets of 

many Americans. Because of their high 

nutrient content and low cost, USDA 

encourages menu planners to include 

beans and peas (legumes) in the school 

menu regularly, either as a vegetable or 

as a meat alternate (as discussed later). 

Some foods commonly referred to as 

beans and peas (e.g., green peas, green 

lima beans, and green (string) beans) are 

not considered part of the beans and 

peas subgroup because their nutrient 

profile is dissimilar. More information 

on the use and categorization of beans 

and peas (legumes) is available online at 

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ 

foodgroups/ 

proteinfoods_beanspeas.html. 

In response to commenter questions 

about how to use salad bars to meet the 

new meal requirements, the Department 

would like to emphasize that schools 

may continue to use salad bars to 

enhance the variety of vegetables in the 

school menu. See FNS memorandum SP 

02–2010—Revised (January 21, 2011) for 

more information on how salad bars can 

be used effectively as part of the 

reimbursable meals. The memorandum 

is available online at http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4093 

Policy-Memos/2011/SP02– 

2011revised_os.pdf. 

As with the proposed rule, this final 

rule allows schools to use fresh, frozen, 

and canned products to meet the 

vegetable requirement. Schools have 

access to nutritious vegetable choices 

through USDA Foods. For example, 

USDA Foods offers only reduced 

sodium canned vegetables at no more 

than 140 mg of sodium per half-cup 

serving, which is in line with the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines. Schools also have 

the option to order frozen vegetables 

with no added salt, including green 

beans, carrots, corn, peas, and sweet 

potatoes. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed vegetables 

requirements, with modifications, and 

codifies them under § 210.10(c) for the 

NSLP and under § 220.8(c) for the SBP. 

Vegetable requirements applicable to 

the SBP in SY 2012–2013 are under 

§ 220.23(g). 

Grains 

Proposed Rule: Offer at least a daily 

serving of grains at breakfast and lunch. 

When this rule is initially implemented, 

at least half of the grains offered during 

the week must be whole grain-rich. Two 

years after implementation, all grains 

offered during the week must be whole 

grain-rich. In addition, allow schools 

the option to offer up to one serving of 

a grain-based dessert daily to meet part 

of the weekly grains requirement. 

Comments: Many commenters, 

primarily nutrition and health 

advocates, and parents, favored 

introducing a whole grains requirement 

in the NSLP and SBP. A number of 

program operators, however, objected to 

the final whole grains requirement (that 

all grains offered must be whole grainrich), and stated that the initial 

requirement (at least half of grains 

offered must be whole grain-rich) is 

sufficient. These commenters asserted 

that prohibiting all refined grains would 

restrict many grains that children and 

adolescents enjoy such as white rice and 

white bread. Other program operators 

that objected to the final whole grains 

requirement expressed concern with the 

timeline and the higher food costs 

associated with using only whole grainrich products, which they argued are 

generally more expensive than refined 

grain products. Many commenters asked 

that USDA clarify the criteria schools 

must use to identify whole grain-rich 

products. 

USDA Response: While children 

generally eat enough total grains, most 

of the grains they consume are refined 

grains rather than whole grains. Whole 

grains (e.g., whole-wheat flour, oatmeal, 

whole cornmeal, and brown rice) are a 

source of nutrients such as iron, 

magnesium, selenium, B vitamins, and 

dietary fiber. Evidence suggests that 

eating whole grains in nutrient dense 

forms may lower body weight and 

reduce the risk of cardiovascular 

disease. Currently, schools may offer 

enriched or whole grains, and are 

allowed to offer enriched, refined grains 

only. Therefore, this final rule 

establishes a minimum whole grain-rich 

requirement in the NSLP and SBP to 

help children increase their intake of 

whole grains and benefit from the 

important nutrients they provide. 

For the NSLP, the whole grain 

requirement takes effect upon 

implementation of the rule. Therefore, 

in SY 2012–2013 and SY 2013–2014 

(the first two years of implementation) 

whole grain-rich products must make 

up half of all grain products offered to 

students. During this time only, refinedgrain foods that are enriched may be 

included in the lunch menu. In SY 

2014–2015 (the third year of 

implementation) and beyond, schools 

must offer only whole grain-rich 

products. 

In the SBP, this final rule provides 

that schools must offer the weekly grain 

ranges and half of the grains as whole 

grain-rich beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 

2013–2014, the second year of 

implementation). All grains offered in 

the SBP must be whole grain-rich in SY 

2014–2015 (the third year of 

implementation) and beyond. Once 

schools meet the daily minimum grain 

quantity required (1 oz. eq. for all agegrade groups) for breakfast, they are 

allowed to offer a meat/meat alternate in 

place of grains. The meat/meat alternate 

can count toward the weekly grains 

requirement (credited as 1 oz. eq. of 

meat/meat alternate is equivalent to 1 

oz. eq. of grain). This modification is 

intended to retain the flexibility that 

menu planners currently have to offer a 

combination of grains and meats/meat 

alternates at breakfast. This final rule 

eliminates the proposed provision to 

require a meat/meat alternate daily at 

breakfast due to the cost concerns 

voiced by program operators. (For more 

details, please see the discussion on 

meat/meat alternate.) 

In this final rule, to receive credit in 

the meal programs, a whole grain-rich 

food must contain at least 51 percent 

whole grains and the remaining grain 

content of the product must be 

enriched. Because current labeling 

regulations and practices may limit the 

school’s ability to determine the actual 

whole grain content of many grain 

products, schools would use both 

elements of the following criterion to 

identify whole grain-rich foods. This is 

consistent with USDA’s approach on 

whole grains in the HealthierUS School 

Challenge (HealthierUS School 

Challenge Whole-Grains Resource, 

http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/ 

healthierUS/NFSMI/ 

lesson2handouts.pdf). Therefore, until 

the whole grain content of food 

products is required on a product label 

by the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), schools must evaluate a grain 

product according to forthcoming FNS 

guidance as follows: 

Element #1. A serving of the food item 

must meet portion size requirements for 

the Grains/Breads component as defined 

in FNS guidance. 

And 

Element #2. The food must meet at 

least one of the following: 

a. The whole grains per serving (based 

on minimum serving sizes specified for 

grains/breads in FNS guidance) must be 

≥ 8 grams. This may be determined from 

information provided on the product 

packaging or by the manufacturer, if 

available. Also, manufacturers currently 

may apply for a Child Nutrition Label 

for qualifying products to indicate the 

number of grains/breads servings that 

are whole grain-rich. 

b. The product includes the following 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- 

approved whole grain health claim on 

its packaging. ‘‘Diets rich in whole grain 

foods and other plant foods and low in 

total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol 

may reduce the risk of heart disease and 

some cancers.’’ 

c. Product ingredient listing lists 

whole grain first, specifically: 

I. Non-mixed dishes (e.g., breads, 

cereals): Whole grains must be the 

primary ingredient by weight (a whole 

grain is the first ingredient in the list). 

II. Mixed dishes (e.g., pizza, corn 

dogs): Whole grains must be the primary 

grain ingredient by weight (a whole 

grain is the first grain ingredient in the 

list). 

For foods prepared by the school food 

service, the recipe is used as the basis 

for a calculation to determine whether 

the total weight of whole grain 

ingredients exceeds the total weight of 

non-whole grain ingredients. 

Several commenters noted that the 

industry standard of identity for whole 

grain products is 14.75 grams, while the 

IOM recommendations for school meals 

were based on 16 grams per serving. 

They suggested that schools be 

permitted to round up to the nearest 

quarter on gram equivalents in products. 

USDA will continue to provide SAs and 

schools guidance on this subject. 

Many program operators expressed 

concern about the increased quantity of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

food offered to children. The weekly 

grains quantity for the NSLP is reduced 

to 8–9 oz. eq. for age/grade group K–5, 

to 8–10 oz. eq. for age/grade group 6– 

8, and to 10–12 oz. eq. for age/grade 

group 9–12. This grains requirement 

still reflects the Dietary Guidelines’ 

recommendation to increase 

consumption of whole grains as half of 

all grains offered must be whole grainrich during the first two years of 

implementation, and all grains must be 

whole grain-rich thereafter. 

Commenters also expressed concerns 

regarding the cost and availability of 

whole grain-rich products. USDA would 

like to emphasize that such products are 

now available through USDA Foods, 

including: brown rice; parboiled brown 

rice; rolled oats; whole-wheat flour; 

whole-grain kernel corn; and wholegrain rotini, spaghetti, and macaroni. 

This final rule modifies the provision 

in the proposed rule to allow schools 

the option to meet part of the weekly 

grains requirement with grain-based 

desserts. USDA had proposed to allow 

up to one serving of grain-based dessert 

per day to allow additional 

opportunities to incorporate whole 

grains in the lunch menu. However, the 

2010 Dietary Guidelines cite grain-based 

desserts as a significant source of solid 

fats and added sugars in Americans’ 

diets. Therefore, this final rule reduces 

the number of allowable grain-based 

desserts from five to two per school 

week, as recommended by several 

commenters. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed grains 

requirements and codifies them under 

§ 210.10(c) for the NSLP and under 

§ 220.8(c) for the SBP. Grains 

requirements applicable to the SBP in 

SY 2012–2013 are under § 220.23(g). 

Meats/Meat Alternates 

Proposed Rule: Offer a meat/meat 

alternate at lunch and breakfast daily to 

meet weekly requirements. Solicit 

comments on whether or not the meat/ 

meat alternate component should 

include the three protein food 

subgroups recommended by the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines: (1) Seafood; (2) 

meat, poultry, and eggs; and (3) nuts, 

seeds, and soy products. Solicit 

comments on whether or not tofu 

should be an allowable meat alternate 

and a methodology for crediting 

commercially prepared tofu. 

Comments: A few commenters, 

primarily health advocates, expressed 

support for the overall meat/meat 

alternate requirement. They supported 

the proposed rule’s emphasis on lean 

sources of protein and on lower-sodium 

meats/meat alternates. Several 

commenters, however, indicated that 

applying a weekly meat/meat alternate 

requirement, rather than a daily source 

of protein, might decrease the estimated 

meal cost and increase menu planning 

flexibility. 

Many of the public comments focused 

on the proposed requirement to offer a 

meat/meat alternate daily at breakfast. 

Commenters who favored the proposal 

stated that a breakfast with a meat/meat 

alternate would provide greater satiety 

and help increase the protein intake for 

children that do not drink milk. They 

said the protein requirement would 

result in a more nutritious and balanced 

breakfast. 

However, many school districts 

expressed concerns about offering a 

daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast. 

Several of these commenters argued that 

there is insufficient scientific support 

for the proposed meat/meat alternate 

requirement at breakfast. Others 

asserted that the daily requirement 

would be costly, create logistical 

difficulties and food safety challenges 

for schools, make it difficult for schools 

to achieve the new sodium limits, and 

discourage new breakfast modalities and 

school participation in the SBP. Some 

also noted that children in most schools 

have very limited time to eat breakfast 

and offering more food would result in 

increased plate waste. 

A few commenters also expressed 

concerns about the availability of meat/ 

meat alternate products that will enable 

schools to offer meals that meet the 

dietary specifications for sodium, 

saturated fat, and trans fat. A 

commenter asked whether USDA Foods 

is able to provide low-sodium processed 

meats, cheeses, and other meat/meat 

alternate products. 

Commenters had different opinions 

on whether or not the meal pattern 

should require that schools offer the 

specific protein food subgroups 

identified in the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines. Those in favor stated that it 

would diversify students’ diet and 

provide health benefits. Those against it 

said that requiring protein food 

subgroups would be cost-prohibitive to 

many schools and that it might not be 

feasible in certain geographical areas. 

They also indicated that many parents 

do not recognize nuts, seeds, and soy 

products as a substitute for meats. 

Many commenters suggested that 

USDA allow schools to offer tofu as a 

meat/meat alternate. A range of 

stakeholders, including SAs, nutrition 

professionals, advocacy organizations, 

and individual commenters, expressed 

support for allowing commercially 

prepared tofu in the school meal 

programs. Some commenters suggested 

a methodology for crediting 

commercially prepared tofu as a meat 

alternate. The predominant approach 

suggested is that USDA credit tofu based 

on the grams of protein per ounce 

equivalent. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

implements the meat/meat alternate 

requirements for the NSLP as proposed. 

Schools must offer at least a minimum 

amount of meat/meat alternate daily (2 

oz eq. for students in grades 9–12, and 

1 oz eq. for younger students), and 

provide a weekly required amount for 

each age/grade group. Offering a meat/ 

meat alternate daily as part of the school 

lunch supplies protein, B vitamins, 

vitamin E, iron, zinc, and magnesium to 

the diet of children, and also teaches 

them to recognize the components of a 

balanced meal. Menu planners are 

encouraged to offer a variety of protein 

foods (e.g., lean or extra lean meats, 

seafood, and poultry; beans and peas; 

fat-free and low-fat milk products; and 

unsalted nuts and seeds) to meet the 

meat/meat alternate requirement. 

The Department is mindful of the cost 

and operational concerns expressed by 

schools and other stakeholders 

regarding the proposed meat/meat 

alternate component in the SBP. 

Previously, schools have had the 

flexibility to offer one serving each of 

grains and meat/meat alternate, or two 

servings of either one at breakfast. We 

have seen a steady increase in the 

number of schools participating in the 

SBP and more schools are offering 

breakfast in the classroom and other 

creative delivery options. Therefore, this 

final rule retains some flexibility offered 

by the grains and meat/meat alternate 

combination available in the current 

SBP meal pattern, and does not require 

a daily meat/meat alternate in the SBP. 

Menu planners may offer a meat/meat 

alternate in place of grains after the 

minimum daily grains requirement is 

met. For example, for the K–5 age-grade 

group, the SBP minimum daily grain 

requirement is 1 oz. eq. As long as at 

least 1 oz. eq. of grain is served as part 

of the breakfast menu, a meat/meat 

alternate may also be served. The meat/ 

meat alternate may count toward 

meeting the weekly grains requirement. 

For crediting, 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat 

alternate is equivalent to 1 oz. eq. of 

grains. 

As suggested by many stakeholders, 

this final rule gives schools the option 

to offer commercially prepared tofu as a 

meat alternate in the NSLP and SBP. 

This provision, which is codified under 

§ 210.10(c)(2)(i)(D) of the regulatory text 

for the NSLP, allows schools to diversify 

the sources of protein available to 

students and better meet the dietary 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4095 

needs of vegetarians and culturally 

diverse groups in schools. Although tofu 

does not have an FDA standard of 

identity, the Dietary Guidelines 

recognize plant-based sources of protein 

such as tofu. USDA will continue to 

provide SAs and schools guidance on 

this issue. 

USDA wishes to clarify that schools 

have the option to offer mature beans 

and dry peas (e.g., kidney beans, pinto 

beans, black beans, garbanzo beans/ 

chickpeas, black-eyed peas, split peas 

and lentils) as meat alternates. Mature 

beans and peas dry longer on the plant, 

fix more nitrogen, and have a higher 

protein content, which makes them 

nutritionally comparable to protein 

foods. They are also excellent sources of 

other nutrients such as iron and zinc. 

Because beans and peas are similar to 

meats, poultry, and fish in their 

contribution of these nutrients, they can 

be credited as a meat alternate. 

Note that a serving of beans and peas 

must not be offered as a meat alternate 

and as a vegetable in the same meal. 

Some foods commonly referred to as 

beans and peas (e.g., green peas, green 

lima beans, and green (string) beans) are 

not considered part of the beans and 

peas subgroup because their nutrient 

profile is dissimilar. For more 

information about the use and 

categorization of beans and peas see 

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ 

foodgroups/ 

proteinfoods_beanspeas.html. 

Schools also have discretion to offer 

ready-to-eat foods such as cold cuts, 

cheese, and yogurt to meet the meat/ 

meat alternate component. Regardless of 

the protein foods offered, schools must 

plan all meals with the goal to meet the 

dietary specifications for sodium, 

saturated fat, trans fat, and calories. 

When selecting protein foods that are 

affordable and easy to prepare, we 

strongly encourage menu planners to 

use low-fat and low-sodium products 

that contribute to improved nutrient 

intake and health benefits (e.g., fat-free/ 

low-fat yogurt and unsalted nuts and 

seeds). 

To support school meal 

improvements, USDA Foods has 

reduced the upper salt limit on 

mozzarella cheese from 2 percent to 1.6 

percent. The current range for 

mozzarella is 130–175 mg of sodium per 

28 g (1 oz.) serving. The sodium in 

processed and blended cheeses has been 

reduced from 450 milligrams or more, to 

between 200 and 300 milligrams per 

28 g (1 oz.) serving, which is closer to 

the sodium levels found in natural 

cheeses. 

USDA had solicited comments on 

whether schools should be required to 

offer the protein food subgroups 

recommended by the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines. In response to program 

operators’ concerns, this final rule does 

not require the three protein food 

subgroups recommended by the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines. However, USDA is 

developing technical assistance to assist 

schools in offering students a variety of 

protein foods consistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed meat/meat 

alternate requirements, with 

modifications, and codifies them under 

§ 210.10(c) for the NSLP and under 

§ 220.8(c) for the SBP. Meat/meat 

alternate requirements applicable to the 

SBP in SY 2012–2013 are under 

§ 220.23(g). 

Fluid Milk 

Proposed Rule: Offer plain or flavored 

fat-free milk and unflavored low-fat 

milk (1 percent milk fat or less), and 

include variety that is consistent with 

Dietary Guidelines recommendations. 

Comments: Many parents and 

nutrition and health advocates favored 

the proposed requirement to limit flavor 

to fat-free milk. They believe that 

saturated fat and sugar in children’s 

diets can be reduced by restricting milk 

choices to fat-free and low-fat, and by 

limiting flavor to fat-free milk. Several 

commenters stated that schools have 

already limited flavor to fat-free milk 

and student acceptability has been good. 

Some commenters recommended a total 

ban on flavored milk and argued that 

several states are in the process of 

banning flavored milk. 

However, more commenters stated 

that flavored low-fat (1 percent or 1⁄2

percent) milk should be allowed. Many 

of these cited a lack of availability of 

flavored fat-free milk. Others were 

concerned that poor student 

acceptability of flavored fat-free milk 

could result in lower milk consumption 

or participation in the school meal 

programs. Some commenters said that 

the amount of extra calories and fat in 

low-fat flavored milk is not significant 

enough to warrant allowing only 

flavored fat-free milk. A few asked that 

USDA phase in the limit on flavored 

milk, and others suggested that USDA 

set a maximum level of added sugar in 

flavored milk instead of allowing flavor 

only in fat-free milk. 

Several commenters addressed the 

need to accommodate lactose-intolerant 

students and, others requested USDA to 

clarify milk variety in school meals. 

Also, although the proposed rule did 

not address meal variations for special 

dietary reasons, some commenters 

discussed the nutrition standards for 

non-dairy milk substitutes (e.g., soy 

drinks) and other miscellaneous topics 

related to the milk component, 

including OVS. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

allows flavor in fat-free milk only, and 

fat-free and low-fat choices only 

(consistent with Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations and the NSLA as 

amended by the HHFKA). Flavored lowfat (1 percent or 1⁄2 percent) milk is not 

allowed in the NSLP or the SBP upon 

implementation of the rule in SY 2012– 

2013 because it contributes added 

sugars and fat to the meal and would 

make it more difficult for schools to 

offer meals that meet the limits on 

calories and saturated fat. We anticipate 

that the new calorie limits will lead 

menu planners to select milk with the 

lowest levels of added sugar. 

Implementing calorie maximums gives 

menu planners more flexibility than 

limiting added sugar. 

Schools already have the option to 

offer lactose-free and reduced-lactose 

milk (fat-free and/or low-fat) as part of 

the reimbursable meal. Offering lactose 

free/reduced milk (fat-free or low-fat) is 

allowed and counts toward the milk 

variety requirement established by in 

the NSLA by the HHFKA. For the NSLP 

and SBP, variety (at least two choices of 

milk) can be accomplished by offering 

different allowable fat levels (fat-free 

and low-fat) and milk flavor in fat-free 

milk only. For additional guidance on 

milk variety, please see the FNS 

memorandum SP–29–2011, Child 

Nutrition Reauthorization: Nutrition 

Requirements for Fluid Milk, dated 

April 14, 2011.) 

The milk fat restriction established by 

this final rule also applies to the meals 

for children in the age group 3–4 even 

though the meal patterns for 

preschoolers will be updated later 

through a separate rule. The 

amendments made to the NSLA by the 

HHFKA require fat-free and low-fat milk 

for all school lunches. Although this 

change was not addressed in the 

proposed rule due to the timing of 

publication, USDA notified program 

operators of this requirement for all 

school meals through implementation 

memorandum SP–29–2011. The milk 

flavor restriction also extends to the 

milk offered to children in age 

group 3–4. 

As requested by commenters, we wish 

to clarify that this final rule does not 

change the nutrition standards for the 

optional non-dairy drinks offered to 

students with special dietary needs (not 

disabilities) in place of milk at the 

request from parents. Those products 

(e.g., soy, rice and almond drinks) are 

offered as meal exceptions on a case by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

case basis and are not intended for 

general consumption with the school 

meal. The nutrition standards for nondairy milk substitutes for children 

without disabilities were established 

through a separate final rule ‘‘Fluid 

Milk Substitutions in the School 

Nutrition Program,’’ which was 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 52903) on September 12, 2008. 

Those standards do not include fat or 

flavor/sugar restrictions. 

We also wish to clarify that although 

fluid milk must be offered with every 

school meal, students may decline milk 

under OVS. In addition, water may not 

be offered in place of fluid milk as part 

of the reimbursable meal, but must be 

available in the food service area for 

students who wish to drink it in 

accordance with the NSLA as amended 

by the HHFKA and as discussed in the 

memorandum ‘‘SP–28–2011 Revised 

Child Nutrition Reauthorization 2010: 

Water Availability During National 

School Lunch Program Meal Service’’ 

dated July 12, 2011. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed milk 

requirements and codifies them under 

§ 210.10(d) for the NSLP and under 

§ 220.8(d) for the SBP. 

Dietary Specifications 

Calories 

Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and 

breakfasts that supply, on average over 

the school week, a number of calories 

that is within the established minimum 

and maximum levels for each age/grade 

group. 

Comments: Many commenters agreed 

in general with the proposal to establish 

minimum and maximum calorie levels, 

and were particularly supportive of the 

maximum calorie levels. These 

commenters included advocacy 

organizations, food banks, a health 

department, a professional association, 

and an industry association. Many 

stated that setting minimum and 

maximum calorie levels along with 

providing nutrient dense meals will 

help address food insecurity and obesity 

concerns. 

A few commenters said many 

students are not active enough and 

recommended lower calorie limits. 

Others, however, indicated that the 

proposed maximum calorie limits for 

school lunch might not be adequate to 

meet the dietary needs of taller and 

active students. Several commenters 

asserted that the calorie levels must be 

adequate enough to support the dietary 

needs of children who may not have 

access to sufficient food outside of 

school. There is also a concern among 

commenters about the ability of schools 

to adhere to the minimum and 

maximum calorie limits in the absence 

of a nutritional analysis. 

In order to control calorie intake, 

some commenters suggested that USDA 

establish limits on added sugars for 

products such as such ready-to-eat 

cereal, grain-based desserts, and dairybased desserts to improve the diet of 

school children. A few commenters, 

including an advocacy organization, 

suggested adopting the World Health 

Organization’s recommendation to limit 

added sugars to ‘‘no more than 10 

percent of a person’s daily caloric 

intake.’’ An advocacy organization and 

a professional association of health 

nutrition directors suggested adopting 

the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and 

Children (WIC) breakfast standard, 

which sets the added sugars limit to no 

more than 6 grams of sugars per ounce 

of dry cereal. 

USDA Response: This final rule is 

intended to respond to serious concerns 

about childhood obesity, and the 

importance for children to consume 

nutritious school meals within their 

calorie needs. Therefore, this rule 

implements the proposed minimum and 

maximum calorie levels for each grade 

group. In the NSLP, the calorie limits for 

each age/grade group take effect upon 

implementation of this final rule. In the 

SBP, however, calorie limits are not 

implemented until the SY 2013–2014 

(the second year of implementation). 

This modification from the proposed 

rule is intended to give program 

operators additional time to implement 

the new meal requirements in the SBP. 

USDA acknowledges the school meal 

programs provide a nutrition safety net 

for food-insecure children and agrees 

with commenters that meals must 

supply adequate calories for growth and 

development. IOM considered this 

aspect of the Child Nutrition Program 

missions when developing the 

minimum and maximum calorie levels 

for various age/grade groups in the 

NSLP and SBP. They also took into 

consideration other opportunities for 

food intake available to most children 

outside of school, and the role of 

community organizations and other 

groups in supporting the nutritional 

needs of low-income children. 

Although some commenters suggested 

setting a limit on added sugars for 

products such as flavored milk, USDA, 

consistent with the Institute of Medicine 

recommendations, does not believe a 

standard is necessary and would 

unnecessarily restrict menu planning 

flexibility. The required maximum 

calorie levels are expected to drive 

menu planners to select nutrient dense 

foods and ingredients to prepare meals, 

and avoid products that are high in fats 

and added sugars. In addition, this final 

rule includes other provisions that limit 

the sources of discretionary calories. 

We also wish to clarify that the calorie 

standards established for each age/grade 

group are to be met on average over the 

course of the week. On any given school 

day, the calorie level for the meal may 

fall outside of the minimum and 

maximum levels as long as the average 

number of calories for the week is 

within the required range. This provides 

some flexibility to menu planners, but 

careful procurement, planning and 

preparation are important to stay within 

the calorie ranges. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed calorie 

requirements and codifies them under 

§ 210.10(f) for the NSLP and under 

§ 220.8(f) for the SBP. Calorie 

requirements applicable to the SBP in 

SY 2012–2013 are under § 220.23(b) and 

§ 220.23(c). 

Saturated Fat 

Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and 

breakfasts that supply, on average over 

the school week, less than 10 percent of 

total calories from saturated fat. 

Comments: Most commenters 

concerned about childhood obesity also 

expressed general support for limiting 

saturated fat in school meals at less than 

10 percent of total calories. This is the 

same as the current saturated fat 

restriction and the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines did not change this 

recommendation. A small number of 

commenters (a health care professional, 

a member of academia, and an advocacy 

organization) suggested a more 

restrictive standard, recommending that 

USDA require less than 7 percent of 

total calories from saturated fat. This 

limit is listed in the Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee report but was not 

adopted as a recommendation in the 

2010 Dietary Guidelines. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

implements the proposed saturated fat 

standard, which is the same as the 

restriction currently in place in the 

NSLP and SBP. Schools must continue 

to limit saturated fat in the school meals 

to help reduce childhood obesity and 

children’s risk of cardiovascular disease 

later in life. Many schools are still 

having difficulty meeting this 

requirement in the NSLP. Several major 

sources of saturated fat in the American 

diet are popular items in the lunch 

menu. 

This final rule implements two new 

requirements set forth in the proposed 

rule and are anticipated to encourage 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4097 

schools to reduce the saturated fat in 

meals: allowing only fat-free and low-fat 

milk, and establishing maximum calorie 

limits. USDA’s technical assistance will 

continue to emphasize the need to 

purchase and prepare foods in ways that 

help reduce the saturated fat level in 

school meals (e.g., procuring skinless 

chicken or using meat from which fat 

has been trimmed, and using vegetable 

oils that are rich in monounsaturated 

and polyunsaturated fatty acids such as 

canola and corn oils). 

This rule does not require schools to 

meet a total fat standard under current 

regulations. The IOM report did not 

recommend that USDA require a total 

fat standard for school meals. The 

expectation is that the new meal 

requirements, including the dietary 

specifications for calories, saturated fat 

and trans fat, will enable schools to 

offer meals that are low in total fat. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed saturated 

requirement and codifies it under 

§ 210.10(f) for the NSLP and under 

§ 220.8(f) for the SBP. 

Sodium 

Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and 

breakfasts that supply, on average over 

the school week, no more than the 

maximum sodium levels set for each 

age/grade group. Meet the intermediate 

sodium targets (two and four years post 

implementation of the rule), and the 

final sodium targets (ten years post 

implementation of the rule; changes 

represent a sodium reduction of 

approximately 25–50 percent in 

breakfasts and lunches). The proposed 

targets aimed to help reduce students’ 

sodium intakes to less than the 

Tolerable Upper Intake Levels 

established in the Dietary Reference 

Intakes, which range from 1,900–2,300 

milligrams per day for children ages 

4–18. 

Comments: Nutrition and health 

advocates, community-action groups, 

individuals, and some school districts 

expressed support for the proposed 

sodium restrictions and timeline. A 

medical association and an advocacy 

organization supported the proposed 

sodium restriction to help address the 

health risks associated with high 

sodium intake. A professional 

association recommended that USDA 

consider further reductions in sodium 

limits after progress has been assessed. 

An advocacy organization suggested 

that USDA base the proposed 

restrictions on the Dietary Guidelines 

recommendation of 1,500 mg of sodium 

per day for special population groups. 

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines 

recommend that persons who are 51 

years and older, African American 

children and adults, and persons of any 

age that have hypertension, diabetes, or 

chronic kidney disease limit sodium 

intake to 1,500 mg per day (compared to 

the 2,300 mg per day recommended for 

the general population). 

However, many commenters were 

concerned that schools will likely 

struggle to meet the proposed 

intermediate sodium limits and fail to 

achieve the final target within 10 years. 

Some commenters asserted that the final 

targets for each age/grade group are 

lower than the therapeutic levels set for 

certain high-risk populations and 

should be increased. A school advocacy 

organization and school districts argued 

that it would be difficult for schools to 

prepare palatable foods at the proposed 

final sodium targets and, therefore, 

students would be motivated to drop 

from the meal program and pack 

lunches that contain high levels of 

sodium. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

about the potential use of sodium 

substitutes in schools. Commenters also 

indicated that industry needs time for 

product development and testing, and 

schools need time for procurement 

changes, menu development, sampling, 

and to foster student acceptance. Two 

food manufacturers commented that 

pizza manufacturers would need to 

complete research in order to secure low 

sodium cheeses that adhere to the 

proposed final target and that children 

like. Some argued that many schools 

rely on canned and processed food 

items and have limited access to 

reduced-sodium products. 

School food service staff, a food 

manufacturer, a nutrition professional 

and individual commenters suggested 

that USDA lengthen the time to reach 

the intermediate sodium targets, and 

eliminate or reevaluate the final target. 

Commenters also encouraged USDA to 

monitor the progress of sodium 

reductions toward targets before moving 

forward. Some offered various 

alternatives to the proposed sodium 

limits and timeline (e.g., a food 

manufacturer suggested 33 percent 

reduction over ten years and a school 

food service staff member suggested 30 

percent over ten years). Several 

commenters suggested a 10–20 percent 

reduction over ten years to allow 

schools to continue purchasing 

affordable processed foods while 

working on recipe modification, in 

order to reduce food costs and potential 

loss of student participation. Others 

recommended establishing daily limits 

for each school meal (e.g., 1,000–1,200 

mg/day for lunch and 1,000 mg/day for 

breakfast). 

Some school districts and a child 

nutrition consultant stated that there is 

not enough scientific data linking 

sodium consumption with health issues 

in children, and did not agree with 

claims that children’s early exposure to 

sodium leads them to develop a 

preference for salty foods. A child 

nutrition consultant, a school nutrition 

directors’ association, a professional 

association, and a school district argued 

that further studies should be conducted 

so that the final target levels are sciencebased. 

USDA Response: Reducing the 

sodium content of school meals is a key 

objective of this final rule reflecting the 

Dietary Guidelines recommendation for 

children and adults to limit sodium 

intake to lower the risk of chronic 

diseases. USDA has encouraged schools 

to reduce sodium since the 

implementation of the School Meals 

Initiative in 1995. According to the 

SNDA–III study, the average sodium 

content of school lunches (for all 

schools) remains high: More than 1400 

mg. Therefore, this final rule requires 

schools to make a gradual reduction in 

the sodium content of the meals, as 

recommended by IOM and consistent 

with the requirements of the FY 2012 

Agriculture Appropriations Act. 

Schools will be required to meet the 

first intermediate sodium target for each 

age/grade group (target 1 in the chart) in 

the NSLP and SBP no later than July 1, 

2014 (SY 2014–2015), two years post 

implementation of this final rule. To 

meet target 1, schools are expected to 

modify menus and recipes promptly to 

reduce the sodium content of school 

lunches by approximately 5–10 percent 

from their baseline. 

Prior to the implementation of the 

second (target 2) and final sodium 

targets contained in this rule, USDA 

will evaluate relevant studies on sodium 

intake and human health, as required by 

Section 743 of the FY 2012 Agriculture 

Appropriations Act. The scheduled 

compliance date for target 2 is no later 

than July 1, 2017 (SY 2017–2018), five 

years post implementation of the final 

rule for both meal programs. In response 

to stakeholders’ concerns, and the 

provisions of Section 743 of the FY 2012 

Agriculture Appropriations Act, this 

final rule lengthens the time to reach the 

second intermediate targets from 4 to 5 

years. This modification to the sodium 

proposal is intended to allow food 

manufacturers additional time to 

reformulate products and schools more 

time to build student acceptance of 

lower sodium meals. To meet target 2, 

schools have to reduce sodium in school 

lunches by approximately 15–30 

percent from their baseline. We 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

anticipate schools will have to 

incorporate new low-sodium products 

and ingredients in meals offered in 

order to meet this target. 

The scheduled compliance date for 

the final sodium targets is no later than 

July 1, 2022 (SY 2022–2023), ten years 

post implementation of the final rule. 

To meet the final sodium target, schools 

will have to reduce the sodium content 

of the meals by approximately 25–50 

percent from the school baseline. This 

will require innovation on the part of 

product manufacturers in the form of 

new technology and/or food products. 

As required by Section 743 of the FY 

2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, 

USDA will certify that it has evaluated 

relevant data on sodium intake and 

human health prior to requiring 

compliance with the second and final 

sodium targets. 

Meeting the final sodium targets will 

enable schools to offer meals that reflect 

the 2010 Dietary Guidelines’ 

recommendation to limit sodium intake 

to less than 2,300 mg per day. Nearly all 

schools have to reduce the sodium 

content of school meals to meet final 

sodium targets, but the extent of the 

needed reduction varies by school/ 

district as sodium limits for school 

meals do not currently exist. The 

following chart illustrates the sodium 

reduction in school meals: 

Age/grade group 

Baseline: Current 

average sodium levels 

as offered 1 (mg) 

Sodium reduction: Timeline and amount 

Target 1: meet by July 

1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015) 

(mg) 

Target 2: meet by July 

1, 2017 (SY 2017–2018) 

(mg) 

Final target: 2 Meet by 

July 1, 2022 (SY 2022– 

2023) (mg) 

Percent change 

(current levels 

vs. final 

targets) 

School Breakfast Program 

K–5 .................... 573 (elementary) ........... ≤ 540 (28.4% of UL) ..... ≤ 485 (25.5% of UL) ..... ≤ 430 (22.6% of UL) ..... ¥25 

6–8 .................... 629 (middle) .................. ≤ 600 (27.3% of UL) ..... ≤ 535 (24.3% of UL) ..... ≤ 470 (21.4% of UL) ..... ¥25 

9–12 .................. 686 (high) ...................... ≤ 640 (27.8% of UL) ..... ≤ 570 (24.8% of UL) ..... ≤ 500 (21.7% of UL) ..... ¥27 

National School Lunch Program 

K–5 .................... 1,377 (elementary) ........ ≤ 1,230 (64.8% of UL) .. ≤ 935 (49.2% of UL) ..... ≤ 640 (33.7% of UL) ..... ¥54 

6–8 .................... 1,520 (middle) ............... ≤ 1,360 (61.8% of UL) .. ≤ 1,035 (47.0% of UL) .. ≤ 710 (32.3% of UL) ..... ¥53 

9–12 .................. 1,588 (high) ................... ≤ 1,420 (61.7% of UL) .. ≤ 1,080 (47.0% of UL) .. ≤ 740 (32.2% of UL) ..... ¥53 

1 Current Average Sodium Levels as Offered are from the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Study-III. Data were collected in the 2004– 

05 school year. 2The IOM final targets are based on the Tolerable Upper Intake Limits (ULs) for sodium, established in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) 

(IOM, 2004). The sodium ULs for school-aged children are 2,300 mg (ages 14–18), 2,200 mg (ages 9–13), and 1,900 mg (ages 4–8). The final 

sodium targets represent the UL for each age/grade group multiplied by the percentage of nutrients supplied by each meal (approximately 21.5% 

for breakfast, 32% for lunch), as recommended by IOM. IOM’s recommended final sodium targets for the K–5 age/grade group breakfasts and 

lunches are slightly higher than 21.5% and 32% 32%, respectively, of the UL because this proposed elementary school group spans part of two 

DRI age groups (ages 4–8 and 9–13 years). 

USDA is committed to helping 

program operators reduce sodium in 

school menus. USDA’s Team Nutrition 

and the National School Food Service 

Management Institute have developed 

guidance for reducing sodium. USDA 

also continues to make low-sodium 

USDA Foods available to schools. For 

example, USDA offers only reduced 

sodium canned beans and vegetables at 

no more than 140 mg per half-cup 

serving, including spaghetti sauce, salsa, 

and tomato paste. Canned whole kernel 

corn, whole tomatoes, and diced 

tomatoes are being offered with no 

added salt. Frozen vegetables, including 

green beans, carrots, corn, peas, and 

sweet potatoes are available with no 

added salt. USDA has also reduced the 

upper salt limit on mozzarella cheese 

(current range is 130–175 mg of sodium 

per 1 oz. serving) and chicken fajita 

strips (220 mg per 2 oz serving). 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed sodium limits, 

with modifications, and codifies them 

under § 210.10(f) for the NSLP and 

under § 220.8(f) for the SBP. 

Tracking Calories, Saturated Fat, and 

Sodium 

Proposed Rule: State agencies must 

monitor compliance with the dietary 

specifications (calories, saturated fat 

and sodium levels) by conducting a 

weighted nutrient analysis for the 

schools selected for administrative 

review every 3 years. The analysis must 

cover menu and production records for 

a 2-week period. 

Comments: Commenters did not 

specifically address the proposal to 

combine the nutritional assessment of 

school meals with the administrative 

review for stronger program 

accountability. Overall, health and child 

nutrition advocates welcomed the new 

SA requirement to conduct 

administrative reviews every 3 years, 

which is codified through this final rule. 

They also agreed in general that 

reviewing menu and production records 

for a 2-week period and conducting a 

weighted nutrient analysis offer a more 

accurate assessment of school meals 

than current regulations. 

However, State and local program 

operators expressed concern about the 

requirement to conduct administrative 

reviews every 3 years. Several 

commenters stated that SAs have 

limited time and resources to conduct 

more frequent administrative reviews 

and provide technical assistance to all 

SFAs. In addition, school districts, SAs, 

trade associations, advocacy 

organizations and others opposed 

removing responsibility to conduct a 

nutrient analysis from the SFAs, 

believing this change limit the SFAs’ 

ability to assess their own efforts to 

reduce sodium and saturated fat, and 

comply with the calorie ranges. Other 

commenters also opposed the 

requirement for a weighted nutrient 

analysis because it would not identify 

issues in menu planning or reflect what 

students actually consume. Several 

commenters requested that a tool be 

developed for SAs to identify issues and 

help implement the new meal 

requirements for schools. 

USDA Response: The HHFKA 

amended the NSLA to require 

improvements to school meals and more 

frequent monitoring of school meals to 

facilitate transition to the new meal 

requirements. This rule requires SAs to 

begin the 3-year Coordinated Review 

Effort (CRE) cycle on July 1, 2013 (SY 

2013–2014) for the NSLP and SBP. To 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4099 

help SAs meet this requirement, USDA 

will develop technical assistance tools 

to facilitate monitoring of school meals. 

This rule requires SAs to conduct the 

nutrient analysis of school lunches and 

breakfasts as part of the administrative 

review, but does not limit SFA 

discretion to conduct a nutrient analysis 

of the school meals to determine if they 

are in line with the dietary 

specifications. We understand that 

many SFAs currently have the ability to 

conduct a nutrient analysis. 

USDA is mindful of SA concerns 

about increased administrative burden. 

In response to concerns about the 

requirement to conduct a nutrient 

analysis of school meals using menus 

for a two-week period, this final rule 

reduces the time period to one-week, 

which is the current requirement. This 

modification to the proposed rule is 

expected to lessen the information 

collection burden on SAs without 

affecting their ability to assess the 

nutritional integrity of the meals offered 

and the general quality of the food 

service operation. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed monitoring 

requirements, with modifications, and 

codifies them under § 210.18(c), 

§ 210.18(g)(2), § 210.18(i)(3), 

§ 210.18(m), and § 210.19(c) for the 

NSLP and under § 220.8(h), § 220.8(i), 

and § 220.8(j) for the SBP. 

Tracking Trans Fat 

Proposed Rule: Food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

lunches and breakfasts must contain 

zero grams of trans fat per serving (less 

than 0.5 grams per serving) according to 

the nutrition labeling or manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

Comments: Many commenters, 

including advocacy organizations, 

schools, health care professionals, 

community organizations and others 

expressed support for the proposal to 

restrict trans fat in school meals. Several 

of them asked that naturally-occurring 

trans fat be excluded from the trans fat 

limit. A few commenters suggested that 

the trans fat limit be greater than zero 

due to concerns over potential increased 

use of hydrogenated oils and saturated 

fats in school meals. No commenters 

opposed the proposal to restrict trans 

fat. 

USDA Response: A number of studies 

suggest an association between trans 

fatty acid intake and increased risk of 

cardiovascular disease. The Dietary 

Guidelines recommend that all persons 

keep trans fatty acid consumption as 

low as possible by limiting foods that 

contain synthetic sources of trans fats, 

such as partially hydrogenated oils, and 

by limiting other solid fats. Therefore, to 

safeguard children’s health, this final 

rule requires that food products and 

ingredients used to prepare school 

meals contain zero grams of added trans 

fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams per 

serving as defined by FDA) according to 

the nutrition labeling or manufacturer’s 

specifications. This requirement takes 

effect in the NSLP on July 1, 2012 (SY 

2012–2013). In the SBP, the requirement 

is effective on July 1 2013 (SY 2013– 

2014, the second year of 

implementation). 

This requirement is intended to 

restrict synthetic trans fatty acids and 

does not apply to naturally occurring 

trans fats, which are present in meat 

and dairy products. Synthetic trans fatty 

acids are found in partially 

hydrogenated oils used in some 

margarines, snack foods, and prepared 

desserts. See USDA Foods guidance on 

trans fat at http://www.fns.usda.gov/

fdd/facts/nutrition/TransFatFactSheet.

pdf. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed trans fat 

restriction and codifies it under 

§ 210.10(g) § 210.10(h) and § 210.10(j), 

for the NSLP and under § 220.8(g), 

§ 220.8(h), and § 220.8(j) for the SBP. 

Standards for Meals Selected by the 

Student (Offer versus Serve (OVS) 

Proposed Rule: Under OVS, students 

may not decline more than two food 

items at lunch and one food item at 

breakfast, and must select a fruit or a 

vegetable at each meal. 

Comments: Many commenters 

expressed their views about this 

proposed requirement. Nutrition and 

health advocates, a professional 

association, a State department of 

health, some school districts and food 

service staff, and individuals expressed 

support for the proposed requirement to 

require a fruit or a vegetable as part of 

the reimbursable meal. They viewed 

this requirement as a means to 

encourage children to eat more fruits 

and vegetables. An advocacy group 

commented that requiring students to 

take a fruit or a vegetable should help 

increase actual fruit and vegetable 

consumption citing a pilot study in 

which more students consumed fruit 

when prompted to take a fruit item. 

However, many commenters 

expressed concerns about potential food 

waste and overall costs associated with 

this proposed requirement. The 

commenters that opposed this proposal 

included a State department of 

education, school districts, school food 

service staff, school advocacy 

organizations, a teachers union, 

students, a child nutrition industry 

consultant, a food manufacturer, food 

service industry firms, nutrition 

professionals, and individuals. 

Generally, these commenters argued the 

proposed requirement that a 

reimbursable meal include a fruit or a 

vegetable would result in increased 

plate waste and increased cost by 

requiring students to choose a food they 

do not intend to eat. School food service 

staff also argued that indirect costs such 

as more frequent trash collection would 

increase if the students throw away 

more food. These commenters asserted 

that this proposed requirement would 

negate the purpose of OVS. 

Commenters asked USDA to clarify 

the minimum amount of fruit or 

vegetable that a student must take for a 

reimbursable meal. Many commenters 

suggested that USDA allows students to 

select less than the full fruit or vegetable 

component under OVS. Suggestions 

included a minimum of 1⁄2 cup, 1⁄4 cup, 

and 1⁄8 cup of fruit or vegetable for a 

reimbursable meal. 

USDA Response: Increased vegetable 

and fruit intake is a key 

recommendation of the Dietary 

Guidelines. This recommendation 

applies to the NSLP and SBP because 

these programs are intended to nourish 

children but also help them develop 

healthy eating patterns. By requiring 

students to take a fruit or a vegetable, 

schools emphasize food choices that are 

high in nutrients and low in calories. 

Therefore, consistent with the Dietary 

Guidelines and the IOM 

recommendations, this final rule 

requires that the reimbursable lunch 

selected by the student includes a fruit 

or a vegetable beginning SY 2012–2013. 

In the SBP, this requirement is effective 

in SY 2014–2015 (the third year of 

implementation), when the fruit 

quantities for breakfast are required to 

increase. 

However, in response to the 

commenters’ concerns about potential 

food waste and cost increases, this final 

rule allows students to take 1⁄2 cup of a 

fruit or a vegetable as suggested by 

several commenters, rather than the full 

component, to have a reimbursable meal 

under OVS. For example, if a school is 

offering 1⁄2 cup of fruit pieces and 1⁄2

cup fruit juice to meet the 1 cup fruit 

component at lunch, the student must 

select at least one of those two items to 

have a reimbursable lunch under OVS. 

This rule continues the current OVS 

practice under FBMP to allow students 

to decline up to two food components 

at lunch (preferred OVS option 

presented in the IOM report). Some 

commenters suggested that USDA 

implement the second OVS option 

identified in the IOM report to allow 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

students to decline more food 

components and, thus, have greater 

control of the amount of food on their 

plate. USDA is not adopting this 

suggestion. Although the second option 

would give school districts greater 

flexibility, it could negatively affect the 

nutritional integrity of the meal. 

In the SBP, OVS applies to food items 

rather than food components because of 

the flexibility to substitute meats/meat 

alternates for grains (once the daily 

grain requirement is met). In SBP, 

schools must offer fruit, milk, and grains 

daily. On multiple days per week, 

schools will need to offer more than the 

minimum daily grains requirement of 1 

oz. eq. per day to meet the weekly grain 

requirement. To accomplish this, 

schools will need to offer at least three 

or four food items on the breakfast 

menu. When a school offers four food 

items at breakfast, students may decline 

one food item. If only three food items 

are offered, students must take all the 

food items to preserve the nutritional 

integrity of the breakfast. More details 

about OVS will be provided in 

guidance. 

Schools that offer salad bars must 

follow the OVS requirements. To ensure 

that students actually take the minimum 

required portion size from a salad bar, 

foods may be pre-portioned to allow 

staff to quickly identify if the student 

has a reimbursable meal under OVS. If 

not pre-portioning, then the cashier 

must be trained to judge accurately the 

quantities of self-serve items on student 

trays, to determine if the food item can 

count toward a reimbursable meal. For 

more information, see FNS 

memorandum SP 02–2010—Revised, 

dated January 21, 2011. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed requirements, 

with modifications, and codifies them 

under § 210.10(e) for the NSLP and 

under § 220.8(e) for the SBP. The OVS 

requirements applicable to the SBP in 

SY 2012–2013 are under § 220.23(e)(2) 

and § 220.23(g)(4). 

Monitoring Procedures 

Proposed Rule: 

• State agencies must review school 

lunches and breakfasts every three years 

during scheduled administrative 

reviews to monitor compliance with the 

meal requirements (meal patterns and 

dietary specifications for calories, 

saturated fat, sodium and trans fats). 

• State agencies must conduct a 

weighted nutrient analysis for the 

schools selected for an administrative 

review to monitor compliance with the 

specifications for calories, saturated fat, 

and sodium. The analysis must cover 

menu and production records for a twoweek meal period. 

• State agencies must take immediate 

fiscal action if a required food 

component is not offered. 

• For repeat violations of the 

vegetable subgroup and milk 

requirements, State agencies must take 

fiscal action if technical assistance and 

corrective action have not resolved 

these violations. 

• For repeat violations of the food 

quantity and whole grain requirements, 

and the dietary specifications (calorie, 

sodium, saturated fat and trans fat), 

State agencies have discretion to take 

fiscal action if technical assistance and 

corrective action have not resolved 

these violations. 

Comments: Various commenters, 

including a health care association, 

State department of education, trade 

association, nutrition professional, food 

service staff, and advocacy 

organizations supported the proposal to 

eliminate the School Meals Initiative 

(SMI) review and monitor the 

nutritional quality of school meals 

through the scheduled administrative 

review. Although a few commenters 

expressed concern with eliminating the 

SMI review, several commenters voiced 

support for a single monitoring system. 

However, numerous commenters said 

that this proposal would not simplify 

monitoring because it increases the 

frequency of the review cycle and the 

meal review period, and requires SAs to 

conduct a nutrient analysis for the SFAs 

to determine compliance with the 

dietary specifications. Some 

commenters argued that SFAs would 

still have to conduct their own nutrient 

analysis to plan meals that meet the 

calorie, saturated fat, and sodium 

restrictions. They expressed concern 

that many food-based SFAs do not have 

the specialized tools to ensure 

compliance with the dietary 

specifications, and that SAs do not have 

enough time or resources to provide 

technical assistance to all SFAs. 

Although some commenters 

supported establishing a 3-year review 

cycle, most commenters opposed 

increasing the frequency of the 

administrative reviews. Those in favor 

of the proposal (health and nutrition 

advocates and providers) stated that it 

would increase opportunities to provide 

technical assistance to the SFAs and 

result in improved meals. Those 

opposed included school districts, food 

service management companies, school 

food service staff, a school advocacy 

organization, State departments of 

education, and nutrition professionals. 

These commenters argued that retaining 

the 5-year review cycle would give SAs 

more time to provide training and 

technical assistance to the SFAs. They 

indicated that SAs would not have the 

staff to handle the increased workload 

of a 3-year review cycle and, therefore, 

the quality of the reviews could suffer. 

Regarding the proposal to review 

menu and production records for a twoweek meal period, most commenters 

expressed opposition. These 

commenters, including State and local 

operators, school food service staff, 

school advocacy organizations, 

professional associations, trade 

associations, and other groups argued 

that reviewing menus for one week is a 

reasonable amount of time to determine 

if an SFA is meeting the meal 

requirements. Some commenters 

estimated that the increased paperwork 

of a 3-year review cycle and a 2-week 

review of menus would triple the cost 

of completing the administrative review. 

There was a mixed response to the 

proposal to include breakfast in the 

administrative reviews. Commenters 

that agreed school breakfasts should be 

included argued that these meals often 

contain less nutrient-dense foods than 

lunch. A similar number of commenters 

opposed the proposal because of cost 

concerns. The latter group stated that 

the reviews should only include lunch 

to offset the increased time and effort 

involved in conducting reviews every 3 

years rather than every 5 years. 

There were few and mixed opinions 

about the use of fiscal action. School 

food service staff argued that fiscal 

penalties are counterproductive and 

create an adversarial relationship 

between the SA and the SFA. They 

recommended that more emphasis be 

placed on providing technical 

assistance, not fiscal action. Other 

commenters favored increasing 

accountability to improve meal quality. 

Commenters offered some suggestions 

regarding monitoring procedures, 

including that SAs monitoring report be 

made available on-line to the public. 

Another suggested that SAs target 

schools with prior non-compliance 

rather that assess a broad sample of 

schools. 

USDA Response: Section 207 of the 

HHFKA amended the NSLA to require 

USDA to establish a unified monitoring 

system. Accordingly, this final rule 

eliminates the SMI review and 

strengthens the administrative review to 

assess compliance with the new meal 

requirements. As required by this rule, 

SAs must monitor compliance with the 

meal patterns and the dietary 

specifications (calories, saturated fat, 

sodium and trans fat) under the 

administrative review responsibilities 

established in 7 CFR 210.18. This 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4101 

change is intended to focus more 

attention on the importance of 

providing lunches and breakfasts that 

reflect the science-based meal 

requirements, in accordance with § 9 of 

the NSLA and § 201 of the HHFKA. 

In addition to observing the serving 

line and the meals counted at point of 

service during the administrative 

review, the SAs must conduct a nutrient 

analysis to ensure that the average levels 

of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

the meals offered over the school week 

are within the values specified in this 

final rule. However, in response to 

commenters’ concerns, this final rule 

requires SAs to review menu and 

production records for one week only 

within the review period, instead of the 

two weeks stated in the proposed rule. 

This modification reduces the 

information collection burden for SAs. 

USDA is reviewing potential alternative 

approaches to nutrient analysis and will 

provide further guidance to SAs. 

This final rule changes the 

administrative review cycle from 5 to 3 

years in accordance with the NSLA, as 

amended by § 207 of the HHFKA. This 

change takes effect in SY 2013–2014, 

after the current 5-year review cycle 

ends. More frequent monitoring is 

intended to increase opportunities for 

the SAs to provide guidance and 

technical assistance to the SFAs during 

implementation of the new meal 

requirements. USDA is aware of 

program operators’ concerns regarding 

increased monitoring and will provide 

technical assistance resources and 

guidance to SAs to facilitate transition 

to the 3-year review cycle. 

This final rule also makes several 

improvements to the SBP to bring those 

meals closer to the recommendations of 

the Dietary Guidelines. Therefore, and 

in accordance with the NSLA as 

amended by the HHFKA, beginning SY 

2013–2014, SAs must monitor 

breakfasts under the administrative 

review. However, because the new meal 

requirements (other than limiting types 

of milk) are being implemented 

gradually in the SBP, part of the 

compliance assessment must be based 

on prior nutrition standards (which are 

now in § 220.23) until new requirements 

in the SBP regulations at § 220.8 take 

effect. The requirement to conduct a 

nutrient analysis of breakfast menu 

records for one-week period begins July 

1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). 

SAs must continue to use technical 

assistance and corrective action as the 

primary strategies to help schools 

comply with the meal requirements. 

However, this final rule gives SAs the 

ability to use fiscal action to enforce 

compliance with specific meal 

requirements. As currently done, SAs 

must apply immediate fiscal action if 

the meals offered are completely 

missing one of the required food 

components. SAs must also take fiscal 

action for repeated violations of the 

vegetable subgroup and milk type 

requirements when technical assistance 

efforts and required corrective action 

have not resolved these violations. 

However, SAs have discretion to take 

fiscal action for repeated violations of 

the food quantity and whole grain 

requirements, and for repeated 

violations of the dietary specifications 

(calories, saturated fat, sodium and 

trans fats). 

A commenter suggested public 

disclosure of the administrative review 

findings. The NSLA, as amended by the 

HHFKA, requires schools to post review 

final findings and make findings 

available to the public. Also, the NSLA 

requires local education agencies to 

report on the school nutrition 

environment to USDA and to the public, 

including information on food safety 

inspections, local wellness policies, 

school meal program participation, and 

nutritional quality of program meals. 

These statutory requirements will be 

implemented through a separate rule. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed monitoring 

requirements, with the modification 

discussed above, and codifies them 

under § 210.18(a), § 210.18(c), 

§ 210.18(g) and § 210.18(m) for the 

NSLP and under § 220.8(h) and 

§ 220.8(j) for the SBP. 

Identification of Reimbursable Meal 

Proposed Rule: Identify the foods that 

are part of the reimbursable meal(s) for 

the day at or near the beginning of the 

serving line(s). 

Comments: Most of the commenters 

that addressed this proposal supported 

it because they believe it helps students 

avoid unintentional purchase of food 

items not included in the reimbursable 

meal. A few commenters opposed the 

proposed requirement and argued that it 

will overtly identify students that 

receive free and reduced price meals. 

USDA Response: Beginning July 1, 

2012 (SY 2012–2013), this final rule 

requires schools to identify the 

components of the reimbursable meal at 

or near the beginning of the serving 

line(s) as students and parents often are 

not aware of what is included in the 

school meal. Identifying the 

components of the reimbursable meal 

also reinforces nutrition education 

messages that emphasize selecting 

healthy choices for a balanced meal. 

Schools have discretion to determine 

the best way to present this information 

on the serving line. Implementing this 

requirement must not result in overt 

identification of any student 

participating in the NSLP or SBP 

through use of a separate serving line for 

the reimbursable meal or other 

segregation of certified students. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed requirement 

and codifies it under § 210.10(a)(2) for 

the NSLP, and under § 220.8(h) and 

§ 220.8(j) for the SBP. 

Crediting 

Proposed Rule: 

• Disallow the crediting of any snacktype fruit or vegetable products (such as 

fruit strips and fruit drops), regardless of 

their nutrient content, toward the fruits 

component or the vegetables 

component. 

• 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. 

Comments: Comments in favor of 

disallowing snack-type fruit or vegetable 

products exceeded the comments 

opposed. Those in favor stated that 

permitting such products sends the 

wrong nutrition message to children. 

Others said that children should be 

offered a variety of whole fruits and 

vegetables. However, some commenters 

opposed the requirement due to 

concerns over the cost of providing 

whole fruit. They suggested that USDA 

allow products made with 100 percent 

fruit. 

Many commenters opposed the 

proposal that all fruits and vegetables 

(and their concentrates, purees, and 

pastes) be credited based on volume as 

served. These commenters included 

school districts, school advocacy 

organizations, trade associations, food 

manufacturers, a food service 

management company, a State 

department of education and others. 

They expressed concern over the 

potential cost increase due to product 

reformulation and reduced product 

acceptability. Many commenters 

recommended that USDA keep the 

current practice to credit tomato paste 

and puree based on their whole-food 

equivalency using the percent natural 

tomato soluble solids in paste and 

puree. 

USDA Response: One of the goals of 

the School Meal Programs is to help 

children easily recognize the key food 

groups that contribute to a balanced 

meal, including fruits and vegetables. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4102 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Effective July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), 

reimbursable meals must not include 

snack-type fruit products that have been 

previously credited by calculating the 

whole-fruit equivalency of the 

processed fruit in the product using the 

FDA’s standards of identity for canned 

fruit nectars (21 CFR 146.113). FDA 

revoked the standard of identity for 

canned fruit nectars through a final rule 

published in the Federal Register (60 

FR 56513) on November 9, 1995; 

therefore, there is no regulatory basis for 

allowing the crediting of these snacktype fruit products. 

As a result of Section 743 of the FY 

2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, 

this final rule does not adopt the 

proposed crediting change for tomato 

paste and puree. USDA will credit 

tomato paste and puree as a calculated 

volume based on the whole food 

equivalency. Although this specific 

proposal was intended to promote 

consistency and improved nutrition by 

crediting all fruits and vegetables (and 

their concentrates, purees, and pastes) 

based on volume as served, this final 

rule must comply with the statutory 

provision. 

Accordingly, this final rule disallows 

the crediting of any snack-type fruit or 

vegetable products, and continues the 

crediting of tomato paste and puree as 

a calculated volume under 

§ 210.10(c)(2)(iii) of the regulatory text. 

Fortification 

Proposed Rule: Disallow the use of 

formulated grain-fruit products as 

defined in Appendix A to 7 CFR part 

220. 

Comments: Most commenters were in 

favor of removing formulated grain-fruit 

products from the School Meal 

Programs. They indicated that such 

products do not support the Dietary 

Guidelines’ recommendation to 

consume fruits as a separate food group. 

However, some commenters opposed 

the removal of formulated grain-fruit 

products, and claimed that these 

products are cost-effective and 

convenient in new breakfast delivery 

systems such as Grab and Go and 

Breakfast in the Classroom. 

USDA Response: This final rule 

disallows the use of formulated grainfruit products to meet the grain and fruit 

components in the SBP beginning July 

1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013). Formulated 

grain-fruit products, as defined in 

Appendix A to 7 CFR part 220, 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 products typically contain high 

levels of fortification, rather than 

naturally occurring nutrients, and are 

high in sugar and fat. Furthermore, they 

no longer meet a need in the school 

meal programs because schools can 

procure more nutrient-dense breakfast 

options with a similar shelf-life. This 

rule does not prohibit the use of 

fortified cereals or cereals with fruit 

(e.g., ready-to-eat cereals) which may 

provide good sources of whole grains, 

fiber, and other important nutrients. In 

most instances, however, the use of 

highly-fortified food products is 

inconsistent with the Dietary 

Guidelines. 

Accordingly, this final rule amends 

Appendix A to 7 CFR part 220 by 

removing Formulated Grain-Fruit 

Products in its entirety. It also makes a 

technical change to Appendix B to 7 

CFR part 210 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 Federal Register 

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 is 

maintaining the requirement to publish 

a Federal Register Notice and update 

the regulations to reflect any changes to 

the categories. 

Accordingly, this final rule 

implements the proposed change by 

removing the Formulated Grain-Fruit 

Products from Appendix A to 7 CFR 

part 220. 

III New Meal Patterns and Dietary 

Specifications 

The following meal patterns must be 

implemented in SY 2012–2013 for the 

NSLP, and phased-in the SBP as 

specified in the footnotes and regulatory 

text. 

Meal pattern 

Breakfast meal pattern Lunch meal pattern 

Grades 

K–5 a

Grades 

6–8 a

Grades 

9–12 a

Grades 

K–5 

Grades 

6–8 

Grades 

9–12 

Amount of food b per week (minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) c d ..................................... 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) c d ............................ 0 0 0 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 5 (1) 

Dark green f ............................. 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Red/Orange f ............................ 0 0 0 3⁄4 3⁄4 11⁄4

Beans/Peas (Legumes) f .......... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Starchy f ......................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Otherf g .......................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

Additional Veg to Reach Total h ........... 0 0 0 1 1 11⁄2

Grains (oz eq)i ..................................... 7–10 (1)j 8–10 (1)j 9–10 (1)j 8–9 (1) 8–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ............. 0 k 0 k 0 k 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Fluid milk (cups)l .................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

Min-max calories (kcal) mno ................. 350–500 400–550 450–600 550–650 600–700 750–850 

Saturated fat % of total calories) n o ..... < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Sodium (mg) n p ..................................... ≤ 430 ≤ 470 ≤ 500 ≤ 640 ≤ 710 ≤ 740 

Trans fat n o ........................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving. 

a In the SBP, the above age-grade groups are required beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–14). In SY 2012–2013 only, schools may continue to 

use the meal pattern for grades K–12 (see § 220.23). bFood items included in each food group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4103 

cOne quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or 

vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. dFor breakfast, vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, 

red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or ‘‘Other vegetables’’ subgroups as defined in § 210.10(c)(2)(iii). eThe fruit quantity requirement for the SBP (5 cups/week and a minimum of 1 cup/day) is effective July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015). 

f Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served. 

gThis category consists of ‘‘Other vegetables’’ as defined in § 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, ‘‘Other vegetables’’ requirement may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined in 

§ 210.10(c)(2)(iii). hAny vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement. 

iAt least half of the grains offered must be whole grain-rich in the NSLP beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), and in the SBP beginning 

July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). All grains must be whole grain-rich in both the NSLP and the SBP beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–15). 

j In the SBP, the grain ranges must be offered beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). 

kThere is no separate meat/meat alternate component in the SBP. Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. 

of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. lFluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored). 

m The average daily amount of calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the maximum values). n 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. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed. o In the SBP, calories and trans fat specifications take effect beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). pFinal sodium specifications are to be reached by SY 2022–2023 or July 1, 2022. Intermediate sodium specifications are established for SY 

2014–2015 and 2017–2018. See required intermediate specifications in § 210.10(f)(3) for lunches and § 220.8(f)(3) for breakfasts.

IV Implementation Timeline 

The following chart provides a 

summary of the new requirements and 

the required implementation dates in 

the NSLP and SBP. Refer to the 

regulatory text for details. 

New requirements 

Implementation (school year) for NSLP (L) and SBP (B) 

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2022/23 

Fruits Component: 

• Offer fruit daily ...................................................................... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............

• Fruit quantity increase to 5 cups/week (minimum 1 cup/ 

day).

.............. .............. B ........... .............. .............. ..............

Vegetables Component: 

• Offer vegetables subgroups weekly ..................................... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............

Grains Component: 

• Half of grains must be whole grain-rich ............................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

• All grains must be whole-grain rich ...................................... L, B ...... .............. .............. ..............

• Offer weekly grains ranges .................................................. L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

Meats/Meat Alternates Component: 

• Offer weekly meats/meat alternates ranges (daily min.) ..... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............

Milk Component: 

• Offer only fat-free (unflavored or flavored) and low-fat 

(unflavored) milk.

L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............

Dietary Specifications (to be met on average over a week): 

• Calorie ranges ...................................................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

• Saturated fat limit (no change) ............................................. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............

• Sodium Targets 1 .................................................................. .............. .............. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. L, B 

Æ Target 1.

Æ Target 2.

Æ Final target.

• Zero grams of trans fat per portion ...................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

Menu Planning: 

• A single FBMP approach ..................................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

Age-Grade Groups: 

• Establish age/grade groups: K–5, 6–8, and 9–12 ............... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

Offer vs. Serve: 

• Reimbursable meals must contain a fruit or vegetable 

(1⁄2 cup minimum).

L ........... B ........... .............. .............. ..............

Monitoring: 

• 3-year adm. review cycle ..................................................... .............. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. ..............

• Conduct weighted nutrient analysis on 1 week of menus ... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............

1Target 2 and the final target will only be required after USDA evaluates relevant data on sodium intake and human health, as required by 

Section 743 of the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act. 

Implementation Resources 

With respect to resources for the 

changes, USDA estimates suggest that 

the common-sense revenue reforms for 

school food businesses included in the 

HHFKA will provide an additional $7.5 

billion in non-Federal revenues over 5 

years to the food service accounts of 

local school districts. This includes over 

$5.3 billion in additional revenue from 

a la carte foods, over $300 million in 

additional payments from paid lunches, 

and over $1.9 billion in additional 

revenue schools resulting from making 

school meals more competitive with a la 

carte foods. 

Since the statute mandated that 

revenue streams from non-Program 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4104 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

foods relative to the costs of those foods, 

should be at least as high as the revenue 

stream for Program meals bears to costs 

beginning July 1, 2011, schools should 

receive over $1 billion in new revenues 

in School Year 2011–2012. That will 

help schools work toward implementing 

the new standards effective the 

following year, i.e., July 1, 2012. In 

addition, USDA estimates that the 

interim rule ‘‘National School Lunch 

Program: School Food Service Account 

Revenue Amendments Related to the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010’’ 

will increase participation in school 

meals programs by 800,000 children. 

The six-cent performance-based 

reimbursement increase included in the 

HHFKA will provide additional revenue 

beyond this amount. The Congressional 

Budget Office estimated about $1.5 

billion over the same period in 

performance-based funding. 

USDA will work with the SAs to 

facilitate transition to the new meal 

requirements. USDA and the National 

Food Service Management Institute are 

developing technical assistance 

resources and training to help school 

foodservice staff improve menus, order 

appropriate foods to meet the new meal 

requirements, and control costs while 

maintaining quality. Resources and 

training materials being developed 

include identifying and purchasing 

whole grain-rich foods, lowering the 

sodium on menus, and meeting the new 

meal pattern requirements. Training 

will be available through a variety of 

methods including webinars and online 

learning modules. 

We are updating the Child Nutrition 

Database and will reevaluate nutrient 

analysis software systems available from 

industry to assist SAs with monitoring 

calories, saturated fat, and sodium in 

the meals offered to students in grades 

K through 12 during the administrative 

review. The Child Nutrition Labeling 

Program is being updated to report 

whole grain-rich contributions to the 

grains component and to provide 

standardized claims for the vegetable 

subgroups consistent with the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines. 

In addition, the HHFKA provides 

USDA $50 million for each of the first 

two years of the new meal requirements 

for use in assisting SAs implement the 

new requirements. These funds, 

combined with increases in State 

Administrative Expense funding, should 

assist States and local operators in 

improving the quality of school meals 

provided to children. 

V. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

has been designated an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final 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 

rule will have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The requirements established by this 

final rule will 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 most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

conducted by FNS in connection with 

this final rule includes a cost/benefit 

analysis and explains the options 

considered to implement the Dietary 

Guidelines in the school meal programs. 

USDA sought the assistance of the 

Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academies to recommend changes to 

school meal standards in the least 

burdensome and costly manner 

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines. 

However, this final 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. The HHFKA authorizes $50 

million over two years to help State 

agencies implement the new meal 

pattern requirements. These funds, 

combined with increases in State 

Administrative Expense funding, should 

assist States and local operators in 

implementing the requirements 

established by this final rule. Local 

program operators 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 to meet the rule 

requirements in a cost-effective manner. 

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, these Programs 

are 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, including ITO 

representatives, 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4105 

Prior Consultation With State Officials 

FNS staff received informal input 

from various stakeholders while 

participating in various State, regional, 

national, and professional conferences. 

Various departments of education, 

boards of education, departments of 

health, and other state and local 

organizations provided input during the 

public comment period. 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. Numerous stakeholders also 

provided input at the public meetings 

held by the Institute of Medicine in 

connection with its school meals study. 

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, food waste, and 

increasing administrative burden. 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 

Although there is general support for 

the meal requirements established by 

this final rule, State and local program 

operators, food industry, and others 

associated with the operation of the 

school meals programs expressed 

concern about the proposed increase in 

food quantities, limit on starchy 

vegetables, sodium reductions, and 

implementation timeline, as well as the 

estimated meal costs. USDA has taken 

into consideration these concerns, and 

the requirements of the FY 2012 

Agriculture Appropriations Act, and has 

modified several of the key meal 

requirements to be responsive to the 

concerns of State and local program 

operators. This final rule makes 

significant improvements to the school 

meals, while modifying the following 

provisions to facilitate successful 

implementation of the final rule at the 

State and local levels: 

• Reduce the proposed grains 

quantities at lunch to reduce food cost, 

• Remove the proposed starchy 

vegetable restrictions at lunch and 

breakfast as required by the FY 2012 

Agriculture Appropriations Act, 

• Allow students to select 1⁄2 cup of 

a fruit or a vegetable to reduce food 

waste, 

• Allow more time to comply with 

the second intermediate sodium targets, 

• Remove the daily meat/meat 

alternate requirement at breakfast to 

reduce food cost, 

• Provide additional time for 

implementation of the breakfast 

requirements, and 

• Reduce the administrative burden 

by requiring State agencies to conduct a 

nutrient analysis of school meals using 

one week of menus, rather than two 

weeks as proposed. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil 

Justice Reform.’’ This final rule is 

intended to have preemptive effect with 

respect to any State or local laws, 

regulations or policies which conflict 

with its provisions or which would 

otherwise impede its full and timely 

implementation. This 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 offered. 

Likewise, State or local agencies could 

accelerate implementation of the 

breakfast requirements in an effort to 

improve all school meals promptly. 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 final rule in 

accordance with USDA Regulation 

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

to identify and address 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 final rule is not 

expected to affect the participation of 

protected individuals in the NSLP and 

SBP. This final 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 is unaware of any current 

Tribal laws that could be in conflict 

with the requirements of this final rule. 

However, we have made special efforts 

to reach out to Tribal communities. We 

held five consultations (webinars and 

conference calls) with Indian Tribal 

Organizations in 2011 to discuss 

implementation of the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act of 2010. These sessions 

provided the opportunity to address 

Tribal concerns related to school meals, 

clarify that traditional foods and local 

products can be incorporated into the 

school meals, and highlight the 

proposed changes to the meal pattern 

(increase in whole grains, fruits and 

vegetables) that are expected to support 

Tribal efforts to reduce diabetes in the 

community. 

In addition, USDA will undertake, 

within 6 months after this final rule 

implementation, 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 final 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve all collections of 

information by a Federal agency before 

they can be implemented. Respondents 

are not required to respond to any 

collection of information unless it 

displays a current valid OMB control 

number. This rule contains information 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4106 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

collection requirements subject to 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. FNS will merge 

these burden hours into National School 

Lunch Program, OMB # 0584–0006 

which is currently under review. A 60- 

day notice was published in the Federal 

Register at 76 FR 2509 on January 13, 

2011 which provided the public an 

opportunity to submit comments on the 

information collection burden resulting 

from this rule. This information 

collection burden has not yet been 

approved by OMB. FNS will publish a 

document in the Federal Register once 

these requirements have been approved. 

The current total estimated annual 

burden for OMB No. 0584–0006 is now 

11,880,415 hours, rather than the 

11,882,408 indicated in the proposed 

rule. 

The average burden per response and 

the annual burden hours are explained 

below and summarized in the chart 

which follows: 

Respondents for this rule: State 

Education Agencies (57) and School 

Food Authorities (6,983). 

Estimated Number of Respondents for 

this rule: 7040. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent for this rule: 3.87217. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

27,260. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents for this rule: 73,849 hours. 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN FOR 0584–NEW, NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, 7 CFR 210 

Section 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

annual 

responses 

Average 

burden per 

response 

Annual 

burden hours 

Reporting: 

SA shall verify compliance with critical and general 

areas of review.

7 CFR 210.18(g) & 

210.18(h).

57 1 57 33 1,881 

SFA shall submit to SA documented corrective action, no later than 30 days from the deadline for 

completion, for violations of critical or general 

area identified on administrative follow-up review.

7 CFR 210.18(k)(2) ............ 6,983 1 6,983 6 41,898 

Total Reporting for DGA rule ........................... ............................................ 7,040 ...................... 7,040 6.2186 43,779 

Total Existing Reporting Burden for Part 210 .. ............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2,912,745 

Total Reporting Burden for Part 210 with DGA 

rule.

............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2,956,524 

Recordkeeping: 

SA establishes guidelines and approves School 

Food Authorities menu planning alternatives. 

(Burden removed by proposed rule).

7 CFR 210.10 (1) ............... 0 0 0 0 * (57) 

SA modifies menu planning alternatives or develops menu planning alternatives. (Burden removed by proposed rule).7 CFR 210.10 (1) ............... 0 0 0 0 * (100) 

SA records document the details of all reviews and 

the degree of compliance with the critical and 

general areas of review. To include documented 

action on file for review by FNS.

7 CFR 210.18 (k), 210.18 

(p), & 210.20 (b)(6).

57 93.23 5,314 2.0 10,628 

SA documentation of fiscal action taken to disallow 

improper claims submitted by SFAs, as determined through claims processing, CRE reviews, 

and USDA audits. Contracts awarded by SFAs 

to FSMCs.

7 CFR 210.19 (c ) & 

210.18 (p).

57 139 7,923 0.50 3,962 

SFAs adopt menu planning alternatives, modify 

menu planning alternatives or develop menu 

planning alternatives and submit them to the 

State agency for approval at SFA level. (Burden 

removed by proposed rule.).

7 CFR 210.10(1) ................ 0 0 0 0 * (26,261) 

SFA documentation of corrective action taken on 

program disclosed by review or audit.

7 CFR 210.18 (k)(2) .......... 6,983 1 6,983 6 41,898 

Total Recordkeeping for New burden .............. ............................................ 7,040 ...................... 20,220 1.4871 30,070 

Total Existing Recordkeeping Burden for 

0584–0006, Part 210.

............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 8,893,821 

Total Recordkeeping Burden for 0584–0006, 

Part 210 with proposed rule.

............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 8,923,891 

* Indicates reduced burden hours due to changes in proposed DGA rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4107 

SUMMARY OF BURDEN (OMB #0584– 

NEW) 

Total No. Respondents ......... 7,040 

Average No. Responses Per 

Respondent ....................... 3.87217 

Total Annual Responses ...... 27,260 

Average Hours Per Response ............................... 2.70 

Total Annual Burden Hours 

Requested ......................... 11,880,415 

Current OMB Inventory ........ 11,806,566 

Difference ............................. 73,849 

Reporting: Affected citation is 7 CFR 

210.18(g) and 7 CFR 210.18(h)—Based 

on the comments received, this final 

rule changed the requirement to analyze 

two weeks’ worth of menus to one week. 

Hence, average burden time per 

response is reduced from 40 hours to 33 

hours for this citation. 

Recordkeeping: 7 CFR 210.18 (k) and 

(p) and 210.20 (b)(6). As the record 

keeping time related to administrative 

review documents is reduced, average 

burden time per response is reduced 

from 2.3 hours to 2 hours. The current 

total estimated annual burden for OMB 

No. 0584–0006 is now 11,880,415 hours, 

rather than the 11,882,408 indicated in 

the proposed rule. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Food and Nutrition Service is 

committed to complying with the EGovernment 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 Summary 

As required for all rules that have 

been designated significant by the Office 

of Management and Budget, a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was 

developed for this final rule. The 

following is a summary of the RIA. The 

complete RIA appears later in this 

document. 

Need for Action 

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 and 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines, provide more prescriptive 

and specific nutrition guidance than 

earlier releases, and require significant 

changes to school meal requirements. 

Benefits 

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). 

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 final 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 also replaces 

higher fat fluid milk with low-fat and 

skim fluid milk in school meals. And it 

limits the levels of calories, sodium, and 

saturated fat in those meals. 

A proposed rule, published by USDA 

in January 2011, made only small 

changes to the IOM recommendations. 

The final rule makes additional changes. 

These changes respond primarily to 

comments received from school and 

State officials, nutrition and child 

advocates, industry groups, parents of 

schoolchildren, and the general public. 

The most significant of these changes 

reduce the immediate and long-term 

costs of implementing the rule. 

Additional changes respond to 

recommendations contained in the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines which were released 

after development of the proposed rule. 

The linkage between poor diets and 

health problems such as childhood 

obesity are 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. 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. Perhaps more 

significantly, obese children and 

adolescents are more likely to become 

obese as adults. In 2008, medical 

spending on adults that was attributed 

to obesity increased to an estimated 

$147 billion. 

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 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 

final rule 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 

This final rule will increase the 

amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole 

grains offered to participants in the 

NSLP and SBP. The final rule 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 will increase by 

2.5 cents per lunch served, as compared 

with prior requirements, on initial 

implementation of the final rule 

requirements. There is no immediate 

increase in breakfast food costs. Two 

years after implementation, when the 

fruit requirement is phased in for 

breakfast, and when all grains served at 

breakfast and lunch must be whole grain 

rich, we estimate that food costs will 

increase by 5 cents per lunch served and 

14 cents per breakfast, as compared with 

prior requirements. 

Compliance with this rule is also 

likely to increase labor costs. Serving 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4108 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

healthier school meals that are 

acceptable to students may require more 

on-site preparation, and less reliance on 

prepared foods. For purposes of this 

impact analysis, labor costs are assumed 

to grow so that they 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. 

The estimated overall costs of 

compliance are summarized below. 

Increased food and labor costs will be 

incurred by the local and State agencies 

that control school food service 

accounts. The rule will also increase the 

administrative costs incurred by the 

State agencies responsible for reviewing 

school district compliance with the new 

meal patterns. The analysis estimates 

that total costs may increase by $3.2 

billion from fiscal year (FY) 2012 

through fiscal year (FY) 2016, or roughly 

8 percent when the rule’s food group 

requirements are fully implemented in 

FY 2015. The estimated increases in 

food and labor costs are equivalent to 

about 10 cents for each reimbursable 

school lunch and about 27 cents for 

each reimbursable breakfast in FY 2015. 

Alternatives 

One alternative to the final rule is to 

retain the proposed rule without 

change. The proposed rule closely 

followed IOM’s recommendations. IOM 

developed its recommendations to 

encourage student consumption of foods 

recommended by the Dietary Guidelines 

in quantities designed to provide 

necessary nutrients without excess 

calories. The final rule still achieves 

that goal. Students will still be 

presented with choices from the food 

groups and vegetable subgroups 

recommended by the Dietary 

Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, 

like the proposed rule, will help 

children recognize and choose foods 

consistent with a healthy diet. 

The most significant differences 

between the proposed and final rules 

are in the breakfast meal patterns, and 

those differences are largely a matter of 

timing. The final rule allows schools 

more time to phase-in key IOM 

recommendations on fruit and grains at 

breakfast. Once fully implemented, the 

most important difference between the 

final and proposed rule breakfast meal 

patterns is the elimination of a separate 

meat/meat alternate requirement. That 

change preserves current rules that 

allow the substitution of meat for grains 

at breakfast. It also responds to general 

public comments on cost, and on the 

need to preserve schools’ flexibility to 

serve breakfast outside of a traditional 

cafeteria setting. 

Even with these changes, and with the 

less significant changes to the proposed 

lunch standards, the final rule remains 

consistent with Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations. The added flexibility 

and reduced cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule should 

increase schools’ ability to comply with 

the new meal patterns. The final rule’s 

less costly breakfast patterns will make 

it easier for schools to maintain or 

expand current breakfast programs, and 

may encourage other schools to adopt a 

breakfast program. These changes 

reduce the estimated 5-year cost of the 

final rule, relative to the proposed rule, 

by $2.9 billion. 

A second alternative would 

implement the final rule’s lunch meal 

pattern changes, but retain the proposed 

rule’s breakfast meal pattern 

recommendations. Adopting all of the 

lunch provisions contained in the final 

rule, but retaining the proposed rule’s 

breakfast provisions, would cost an 

estimated $5.9 billion over 5 years, or 

$2.7 billion more than the final rule. 

This alternative responds less 

effectively than the final rule to 

comments received by USDA from SFA 

and school administrators who 

expressed concerns about the cost of the 

proposed rule. 

An alternative that implements the 

final rule’s breakfast meal pattern 

changes, but retains the proposed rule’s 

lunch meal pattern recommendations, 

would cost $3.4 billion over 5 years, 

about $180 million more than the final 

rule. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Title: Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs 

Action 

a. Nature: Final 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 final rule amends Sections 210 and 

220 of the regulations that govern the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). 

The rule implements many of the 

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 

final 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4109 

1The 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 2012. Elsewhere in this 

document, baseline costs refer to the cost to schools 

of serving meals that satisfy current program 

requirements. 2USDA program data. 

3Reimbursement rates and annual inflation 

adjustments are set by statute, not regulation. The 

final 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 U.S.C. 

1753(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(2)). Breakfast 

reimbursement rates are specified in Section 

4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 

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 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)). 

production, distribution and service 

industry. 

Contents 

Abbreviations 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Final Rule Meal 

Requirements 

III. Cost/Benefit Assessment 

A. Summary 

1. Costs 

2. Benefits 

B. Food and Labor Costs 

1. Baseline Cost Estimate 

2. Final Rule Cost Estimate 

3. Food Cost Drivers 

4. Comparison of FNS and IOM Cost 

Estimates 

C. Administrative Impact 

D. Food Service Equipment 

E. Comments on Proposed Rule 

F. Uncertainties 

G. Comparison of Proposed Rule and Final 

Rule Costs 

H. Implementation of Final Rule—SFA 

Resources 

I. Impact on Participation 

J. Benefits 

IV. Alternatives 

V. Accounting Statement 

VI. References 

VII. 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 

31.7 million children per day ate a 

reimbursable lunch in fiscal year (FY) 

2010. The School Breakfast Program 

(SBP) served an average of 11.7 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 $13.7 billion 

in FY 2010. FNS projections of the 

number of meals served and Federal 

program costs are summarized in Table 

1.1

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 .................................................... 5,386.7 5,465.3 5,530.9 5,586.2 5,630.9 5,675.9 

—Program Cost ........................................................ $11,822.8 $12,373.0 $12,499.8 $12,584.9 $12,679.3 $12,782.4 

SBP: 

—Breakfasts Served ................................................. 2,090.9 2,187.0 2,252.7 2,297.7 2,332.2 2,367.2 

—Program Cost ........................................................ $3,115.3 $3,337.7 $3,469.8 $3,556.7 $3,628.6 $3,721.0 

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.2

Reimbursement rates for meals served 

under the current meal patterns are 

established by law and are adjusted 

annually for inflation.3 For school year 

(SY) 2011–2012, the Federal 

reimbursement for a free breakfast for 

schools in the contiguous United States 

and ‘‘not in severe need’’ is $1.51; the 

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 $2.77. 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 2011–2012, 

including USDA Foods. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4110 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4School year 2011–2012 NSLP and SBP 

reimbursement rates, and the minimum value of 

donated foods, can be found in the July 20, 2011 

Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 139, pp. 43256 and 

43258. 

5Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 9, pp. 2494–2570. 

6Table taken from preamble to the final rule. 

TABLE 2—FEDERAL PER-MEAL REIMBURSEMENT AND MINIMUM VALUE OF USDA FOODS, SY 2011–2012 4

Breakfast reimbursement Lunch reimbursement 

Minimum value 

of donated foods 

Schools in 

‘‘severe need’’ 

Schools not in 

‘‘severe need’’ 

SFAs that serve 

at least 60% of 

lunches free or 

at reduced price 

SFAs that serve 

fewer than 60% 

of lunches free 

or at reduced 

price 

Additional 

Federal 

assistance for 

each NSLP lunch 

served 

Contiguous States: 

—Free ....................................................... $1.80 $1.51 $2.79 $2.77 $0.2225 

—Reduced Price ....................................... 1.50 1.21 2.39 2.37 0.2225 

—Paid ....................................................... 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.2225 

Alaska: 

—Free ....................................................... 2.88 2.41 4.52 4.50 0.2225 

—Reduced Price ....................................... 2.58 2.11 4.12 4.10 0.2225 

—Paid ....................................................... 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.2225 

Hawaii: 

—Free ....................................................... 2.10 1.76 3.27 3.25 0.2225 

—Reduced Price ....................................... 1.80 1.46 2.87 2.85 0.2225 

—Paid ....................................................... 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.2225 

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 and 2010 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.5

II. Summary of Final Rule Meal 

Requirements 

The proposed rule, published in 

January 2011, made only minor changes 

to the IOM recommendations. This final 

rule makes more significant changes. 

These changes respond primarily to 

comments received from school and 

State officials, nutrition and child 

advocates, industry groups, parents of 

schoolchildren, and the general public. 

Additional changes respond to 

recommendations contained in the 2010 

Dietary Guidelines which were released 

after development of the proposed rule. 

As a group, these changes reduce 

program costs relative to the proposed 

rule. The final rule is effective at the 

start of SY 2012–2013. 

The final rule, like the proposed rule, 

makes the following changes to current 

NSLP and SBP meal standards: 

• Increases the amount and variety of 

fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; 

• Sets minimum and maximum levels 

of calories; and 

• Increases the focus on reducing the 

amounts of saturated fat and sodium 

provided in school meals. 

Table 3 summarizes the breakfast and 

lunch meal standards with all 

provisions fully phased in. The 

following provisions are subject to a 

phased implementation; all other 

provisions are effective July 1, 2012: 

• Minimum breakfast fruit 

requirement is effective July 1, 2014, 

• Minimum breakfast grain 

requirement is effective July 1, 2013, 

• Intermediate sodium targets take 

effect on July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2017; 

the final sodium target (in Table 3) takes 

effect on July 1, 2022. (See Table 3a.) 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6

Meal pattern 

Breakfast meal pattern Lunch meal pattern 

Grades K– 

5 a

Grades 6– 

8 a

Grades 9– 

12 a Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9– 12 

Amount of food b per week (minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) c d ................................................................. 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) c d ........................................................ 0 0 0 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 5 (1) 

Dark green f ............................................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4111 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6—Continued 

Meal pattern 

Breakfast meal pattern Lunch meal pattern 

Grades K– 

5 a

Grades 6– 

8 a

Grades 9– 

12 a Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9– 

12 

Red/Orange f ............................................................. 0 0 0 3⁄4 3⁄4 11⁄4

Beans/Peas (Legumes)f ........................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Starchy f .................................................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Otherf g ..................................................................... 0 0 0 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

Additional Veg to Reach Total h ....................................... 0 0 0 1 1 11⁄2

Grains (oz eq)i ................................................................. 7–10 (1)j 8–10 (1)j 9–10 (1)j 8–9 (1) 8–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Means/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ....................................... 0 k 0 k 0 k 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Fluid milk (cups)l ............................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

Min-max calories (kcal) mno ............................................. 350–500 400–500 450–600 550–650 600–700 750–850 

Saturated fat (% of total calories) n o ................................ < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 

Sodium (mg) n p ................................................................ ≤ 430 ≤ 470 ≤ 500 ≤ 640 ≤ 710 ≤ 740 

Trans fat o ......................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must indicate zero grams of trans fat per 

serving. 

a In the SBP, the above age-grade groups are required beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–14). In SY 2012–2013 only, schools may continue to 

use the meal pattern for grades K–12 (See § 220.23). bFood items included in each food group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. cOne quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or 

vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. dFor breakfast, vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, 

red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or ‘‘Other vegetables’’ subgroups, as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii). eThe fruit quantity requirement for the SBP (5 cups/week or a minimum of 1 cup/day) is effective July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015). 

f Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served. 

gThis category consists of ‘‘Other vegetables’’ as defined in Section 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, the ‘‘Other vegetables’’ 

requirement may be met with any additional this category also includes any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas 

(legumes) as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii) vegetable subgroups. hAny vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement. 

iAt least half of the grains offered must be whole grain-rich in the NSLP beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), and in the SBP beginning 

July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). All grains must be whole grain-rich in both the NSLP and the SBP beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–15). 

j In the SBP, the grain ranges must be offered beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). 

kThere is no separate meat/meat alternate component in the SBP. Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. 

of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. lFluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored). 

m The average daily amount of calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the maximum values). n 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. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed. o In the SBP, calories and trans fat specifications take effect beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014). 

pFinal sodium specifications are to be reached by SY 2022–2023 or July 1, 2022. Intermediate sodium specifications are established for SY 

2014–2015 and 2017–2018. See required intermediate specifications in § 210.10(f)(3) for lunches and § 220.8(f)(3) for breakfasts.

TABLE 3A—INTERMEDIATE AND FINAL SODIUM TARGETS

Age/grade group 

Sodium reduction: timeline and amount 

Target 1: July 1, 2014 

(SY 2014–2015) 

(mg) 

Target 2: July 1, 2017 

(SY 2017–2018) 

(mg) 

Final target: July 1, 2022 

(SY 2022–2023) 

(mg) 

K–5 ....................................................................... ≤ 1,230 ≤ 935 ≤ 640 

6–8 ....................................................................... ≤ 1,360 ≤ 1,035 ≤ 710 

9–12 ..................................................................... ≤ 1,420 ≤ 1,080 ≤ 740 

Key differences between current meal 

pattern requirements and the final rule 

include: 

• 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 

5 vegetable subgroups. The proposed 

rule included tomatoes in the ‘‘other’’ 

vegetable category, consistent with the 

2005 Dietary Guidelines. The 2010 

Dietary Guidelines and this final rule 

create a new ‘‘red/orange’’ group that 

combines tomatoes with all of the 

vegetables in the previous ‘‘orange’’ 

category. 

• 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 fat free milk for 

higher fat content milk. This is a 

separate requirement of the Healthy 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4112 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 202 of HHFKA requires schools 

to offer a variety of fluid milk consistent 

with the recommendations of the most 

recent Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines 

recommends fat free or low fat milk (1 

percent milkfat) for children ages 2 and 

older. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4113 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.001</GPH>
4114 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7Although a separate rulemaking will propose 

changes to the meal patterns for preschoolers, this 

rule makes one significant change for that age/grade 

group. Section 202 of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids 

Act (Pub. L. 11–296) requires that schools offer a 

variety of milk, and that the milk offered comply 

with the recommendations of the most recent 

Dietary Guidelines. Consistent with that statutory 

requirement, this rule requires that schools serve 

only fat-free and low-fat milk in school lunches and 

breakfasts. That requirement applies to meals 

served by schools to children ages 3–4 as well as 

to older children in grades K–12. Because low-fat 

and fat-free milk tend to cost less than milk with 

higher fat content, that change will have a small 

negative effect on the cost of meals served to preK children. In addition to that change, the rule 

requires 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 

switch to FBMP, where necessary, makes no 

substantive change to the pre-K meal requirements, 

our analysis assumes that this provision of 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. 

8The 2.5 cent per lunch figure is an estimate for 

the end of FY 2012 (the start of SY 2012–2013). The 

higher numbers are for FY 2015. 

9USDA 2008, volume 1, pp. 162 and 196. 

10 IOM 2009, p. 148. 

11The 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). 

III. Cost/Benefit Assessment 

A. Summary 

1. Costs 

The final rule will more closely align 

school meal pattern requirements with 

the science-based recommendations of 

the 2005 and 2010 Dietary Guidelines. 

These changes will increase the amount 

of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains 

offered to participants in the NSLP and 

SBP.7 The final rule 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 will increase by 

2.5 cents per lunch served, as compared 

with prior requirements, on initial 

implementation of the final rule 

requirements. There is no immediate 

increase in breakfast food costs. Two 

years after implementation, when the 

fruit requirement is phased in for 

breakfast, and when all grains served at 

breakfast and lunch must be whole grain 

rich, we estimate that food costs will 

increase by 5 cents per lunch served and 

14 cents per breakfast, as compared with 

prior requirements.8 In aggregate, we 

estimate that the rule may increase SFA 

food costs by $1.6 billion from FY 2012 

through FY 2016. The annual increase 

in food costs relative to current 

standards is estimated to be about $0.6 

billion by FY 2015. 

The rule sets sodium targets that will 

not be fully implemented in the five 

year period covered by this analysis. 

The rule’s initial sodium targets take 

effect in SY 2014–2015. Our cost 

estimate does not include an explicit 

adjustment to meet those targets. The 

rule’s initial sodium targets impose 

relatively modest reductions from levels 

observed in SY 2004–2005.9 Our 

estimate assumes that schools will meet 

the rule’s initial targets as they 

reformulate recipes to meet the rule’s 

food group requirements; that cost is 

contained in our estimate’s food group 

and labor components. 

Compliance with this rule is 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.10. 

For purposes of this impact analysis, 

labor costs are assumed to grow so that 

they 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.11

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 $3.2 billion through 

fiscal year (FY) 2016, or roughly 8 

percent when the rule’s food group 

requirements are fully implemented in 

FY 2015. The estimated increases in 

food and labor costs are equivalent to 

about 10 cents for each reimbursable 

school lunch and about 27 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 FINAL RULE

[Dollars in Millions] 

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Food Costs ............................... $20.8 $135.4 $178.7 $612.8 $642.8 $1,590.5 

Labor Costs .............................. 20.7 141.9 174.4 598.0 627.2 1,562.3 

State Agency Administrative 

Costs.

0.1 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.7 37.1 

Total .................................. $41.6 $286.2 $362.1 $1,220.2 $1,279.7 $3,189.9 

Percent Change Over Baseline 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% 8.0% 8.1% 5.2% 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4115 

2. Benefits 

The primary benefit of this 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 

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 rule. 

Figure 1: Baseline Food Cost Estimate 

Under Current Requirements and 

Practices 

Objective: Use price and quantity data 

collected from schools to compute the 

total cost of NSLP and SBP meals served 

under current program rules. 

The data sources that we use in this 

analysis, and their contribution to our 

food cost estimate, are summarized in 

Table 7. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCES

Data source Contribution to food cost estimate 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study III (USDA 2007).

• Food codes and descriptions and food quantities served to students in SY 2004–05. Prices are applied to these food quantities to determine baseline food costs. 

• Meals served, quantities served, and quantities offered (‘‘offer weights’’) by food type, by school 

type (elementary, middle, and high). Used to determine students’ inclinations to take an offered 

menu item (‘‘take rates’’). Take rates are applied to the types and quantities of food that must be 

offered to students under the rule to estimate quantities served. 

School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study 

II (USDA 2008).

• Food codes and descriptions, number of servings, average gram weight per serving, total grams 

served, cost per serving. These are used, along with other data sources, to estimate the cost per 

cup or ounce equivalent of each of the rule’s required food types and combination entre ́es. 

• Also used to estimate the relative cost of food group subtypes: whole versus refined grain products, and the various vegetable varieties with separate serving requirements under the rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.003</GPH>
4116 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

12 If patterns of student selection of foods are 

different in private schools than they are 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. 

13We used index values for the 11 months ending 

in August 2011 to estimate average index values for 

all of FY 2011. 

14 If, instead, we entirely discount the most recent 

two years of inflation, and instead used a 5-year 

average ending in FY 2009 to project future food 

prices, then our cost estimate would be higher. That 

scenario is discussed in Section F. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCES—Continued 

Data source Contribution to food cost estimate 

USDA Child Nutrition Food Labels .......... • USDA food labels contain information on food group crediting for child nutrition program administrators. USDA maintains a collection of food labels for thousands of commercially-prepared entrees. 

Food group crediting information is used to determine the cup or ounce equivalents of meat, meat 

alternate, grain, vegetable, and fruit that may be credited by schools for a particular entre ́e. 

• Food group crediting is used to determine how much of the rule’s food group requirements are satisfied by prepared foods offered by schools, and how much remains to be met with single food or 

non-entre ́e items. 

USDA, National Food Service Management Institute, Recipe Database.• The recipe database is used to supplement the information from USDA food labels. The recipe 

records, like the food labels, contain food group crediting information used to determine how much 

of the rule’s food group requirements are satisfied by particular food items. 

USDA Food Buying Guide ...................... • The Food Buying Guide also contains information on food group crediting. The crediting information 

for various grain products is used in this estimate. 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, 

National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, SR22.

• The SR22 is used to supplement the other food group crediting resources listed above. SR22 information was used to estimate food credits for food items without a CN food label, or a USDA recipe. 

SR22 provides protein and fiber content per given volume of a particular food. That information is 

used to estimate the food group credits for foods that are similar, but not identical, to foods with 

CN labels or USDA recipe records. 

• SR22 data is also used to compute the proper conversion factor from grams to cups for various 

school foods. 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, 

MyPyramid Equivalents Database for 

USDA Food Codes, Version 1.0.

• Used to determine the relative share of vegetables in combination foods and entre ́es by each of 

the varieties with separate serving requirements under the rule. 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study II (USDA 2001).

• Average food group crediting information for school salad bars is taken from SNDA–II. 

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.12 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. Through August 2011, these 

inflators are constructed with actual CPI 

values.13 For years after 2011, the food 

group inflators rely on historic 7-year 

averages. 

Our proposed rule analysis computed 

5-year historic averages through FY 

2009. Price inflation for most major food 

groups in the two years since FY 2009 

was lower than inflation in the 5 years 

ending in September 2009. For our final 

rule cost analysis we use a 7-year 

average to project future prices. This 7- 

year average adds the most recent 2 

years of price data to the 5 years used 

in the proposed rule methodology. We 

use a 7-year average, retaining all of the 

5 years used in the proposed rule 

methodology, to avoid giving too much 

weight to the reduction in price 

inflation observed during the most 

recent two years, a period of weak 

economic growth and consumer 

demand. Use of a 5-year average ending 

in FY 2011 would produce a lower cost 

estimate than the one presented here.14

Food group inflation factors are 

summarized in Table 8. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4117 

15Computed 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. 

16For more information see http:// 

www.commodityfoods.usda.gov/fd_purchasing.htm. 17The projected growth above in meals served 

through FY 2011 reflects the difference between 

FNS estimates for FY 2011 prepared for the 2012 

President’s Budget and actual meals served in FY 

2010. The remaining percentages are FNS 

projections prepared for the FY 2012 President’s 

Budget. 

TABLE 8—FOOD GROUP PRICE INFLATORS 15

Cumulative increase 2006 to 

2011 

(percent) 

7-year Historic 

average (for 

years after 

2011) 

(percent) 

Lunch inflators: 

—Milk ................................................................................................................................................................ 12.33 2.03 

—Meat or Meat Alternate ................................................................................................................................. 17.54 2.75 

—Fruit Juice ..................................................................................................................................................... 19.18 2.82 

—Fruit (non-juice) ............................................................................................................................................. 12.39 2.82 

—Vegetables .................................................................................................................................................... 18.52 3.97 

—Refined and Whole Grains ........................................................................................................................... 25.16 3.85 

—Combination Foods/Entrees ......................................................................................................................... 15.62 2.67 

Breakfast inflators: 

—Milk ................................................................................................................................................................ 12.33 2.03 

—Meat or Meat Alternate ................................................................................................................................. 16.52 2.63 

—Fruit Juice ..................................................................................................................................................... 19.18 2.82 

—Fruit (non-juice) ............................................................................................................................................. 10.38 2.66 

—Vegetables .................................................................................................................................................... 19.81 4.83 

—Refined and Whole Grains ........................................................................................................................... 17.39 2.50 

—Combination Foods/Entrees ......................................................................................................................... 15.62 2.67 

The value of USDA Foods and the 

value of cash in lieu of such food 

donations enters into both our baseline 

and final 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 final rule as 

effectively as they do now. USDA’s 

annual commodity purchase plan, 

developed by FNS in consultation with 

the Agricultural Marketing Service and 

the Farm Service Agency, is driven by 

school demand for particular products 

as well as by current prices, available 

funds, and the variable nature of 

agricultural surpluses.16

In large measure, USDA Foods offered 

to schools are already well positioned to 

support the final rule’s 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 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 rule is shown in 

Table 9. 

TABLE 9—PROJECTED BASELINE GROWTH IN REIMBURSABLE MEALS SERVED 17

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 ................................................................................. 2.4% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 

Breakfasts: 

Meals (billions) .................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 

Percent change ................................................................................. 6.8% 4.6% 3.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 

Appendix A contains a set of tables 

that detail the calculations described 

above. The appendix tables present 

baseline and final rule food prices, food 

quantities, and meals served for 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 rule, and the costs 

of compliance with the 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4118 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

18The 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. 

2. Final Rule Cost Estimate 

Food Costs: Both our baseline and 

final 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-and-serve 

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 final rule cost estimate 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.18 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. 

A basic assumption underlying the 

estimated cost of reimbursable meals 

under the final 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 after implementation 

of the rule. 

Figure 2: Food Costs Under Final Rule 

Objective: Use price data collected 

from schools and new meal pattern 

requirements to estimate the cost of 

serving meals under the final rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4119 

19As with the baseline estimate, we prepared 

separate estimates of meals served under the final 

rule for breakfast and lunch. 

20Many large commercial food vendors prepare 

their own CN labels to help market their foods to 

SFAs. Other labels are developed by USDA. 

We separated combination foods from 

single food items in the SNDA–III and 

SLBCS–II datasets.19 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 

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.20 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.004</GPH>
4120 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

21Because 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. 

22Our take rates are weighted averages computed 

from all school level records on SNDA–III. SNDA 

data allows the computation of take rates for single 

food items and combination entrees. We use 

estimates of the component foods contained in 

combination entrees to estimate overall take rates 

for each of the final rule’s food groups, whether 

those foods are served separately or as part of a 

combination entre ́e. We cap individual school take 

rates for any food group at 100%. We assume that 

these take rates remain unchanged after 

implementation of the rule for two primary reasons: 

lack of an evidence-based alternative, and to avoid 

understating the costs of the rule. 

23The amount of refined grains in combination 

foods in excess of final rule requirements are offset 

by subtracting the value of an equivalent amount of 

single food refined grain products from the rule’s 

per-meal cost. 

24Note 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 final rule’s meal patterns. 

25 IOM 2009, p. 110. 

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.21

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 rule 

after adjustment for student selection. 

Under the final 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 final rule’s food 

group requirements from Tables 4 and 

5.22

These adjusted requirements are 

estimates of what elementary, middle, 

and high schools are likely to serve to 

students after implementation of the 

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 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 final rule cost 

estimates; we do not attempt to 

construct a reformulated set of 

combination foods to satisfy the 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.23 As 

a result, the cost per unit of combination 

foods served is unchanged in the 

baseline and under the final rule, and 

the entire cost of meeting the new rule’s 

requirements is reflected in the cost of 

single foods. 

In practice, we expect manufacturers 

will offer reformulated versions of 

popular combination foods, and that 

schools will incorporate more whole 

grains and vegetable varieties in their 

entree recipes, so that students will 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.24

The final rule requires that no more 

than half of the fruit requirement be met 

with fruit juice because juice lacks fiber 

and may contribute to excessive calorie 

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 rule’s 

entire increase in the fruit group 

requirement will be satisfied with 

additional servings of whole or cut-up 

fruit; the estimate assumes that schools 

will serve no more fruit juice to students 

under the final 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 final rule. Like 

our baseline estimates, these are 

multiplied by weighted food group 

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 this rule, 

illustrates the need for additional labor 

hours by school kitchen staff. 

More 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.25

In addition to the implied need for 

new kitchen equipment, IOM notes that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4121 

26 Ibid. 

27 IOM 2009, p. 148. 

28 Ibid. 

29USDA 2008, p. 3–5 

30USDA 2008, p. 3–9 

31The 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. 

32Labor 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. 

33The new standards will 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 rule on student participation 

in section III.F. We examine the effect of alternate 

participation assumptions in section F. 

34Two years after implementation of the rule, in 

SY 2014–2015, all grains servings offered to meet 

meal pattern requirements must be whole grain 

rich. The new minimum fruit requirement at 

breakfast also takes effect in SY 2014–2015; this is 

the last of the rule’s major changes to the breakfast 

meal patterns. 

‘‘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.’’ 26

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.’’ 27 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).28

The effect of the final rule’s meal 

requirements on the mix of food and 

labor costs is unclear. The 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 possible that the cost of 

installing and maintaining a salad bar 

could increase the overall cost of school 

meal production. Similarly, to meet the 

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.’’ 29 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.30

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.31 We estimate that 

the rule may increase schools’ food 

costs by about 8 percent by FY 2015. 

Although labor costs relative to food 

costs have held steady over many 

years,32 this approach may overstate 

labor costs. We explore the potential 

effect of labor costs growing at a 

somewhat lower rate in section F. 

Food and Labor Cost Summary: Table 

10 summarizes the estimated increase in 

food and labor costs associated with the 

final rule through FY 2016.33 (The final 

two rows of Table 10 also include the 

estimated administrative costs to State 

agencies.) Overall, we estimate that the 

rule may increase the total cost of 

reimbursable school meals by $3.2 

billion over five years; the cost of food 

would increase by $1.6 billion, and the 

cost of labor would increase by $1.6 

billion. In the first year of full 

implementation (FY 2015),34 the 

combined cost of food and labor is 

expected to be about 8 percent higher 

under the final rule than under existing 

requirements. The estimated additional 

cost of food for a reimbursable lunch 

increases from about 2.5 cents in FY 

2012 to 5.4 cents in FY 2016; food costs 

for a reimbursable breakfast grow to 14.1 

cents in FY 2016. These per meal 

increases roughly double—to 11 cents 

and 28 cents by FY 2016—when the 

estimated cost of labor is included. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4122 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3. Food Cost Drivers 

Table 11 provides a breakdown in the 

estimated food costs of the final rule by 

seven broad food categories. Consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines, the 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 rule may not be 

shared equally by producer groups. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4123 

35See section F. for an examination of the cost 

implications of altering this assumption. 

36This provision is required by Section 202 of the 

HHFKA and has already taken effect. Through 

implementation memo SP–29—2011, dated April 

14, 2011, schools were required to offer a variety 

of milk that meets Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations. The USDA implementation 

memo clarifies that schools must offer at least two 

fat-free or low-fat (1 percent milkfat) varieties 

effective with the start of SY 2011–2012. This final 

rule includes the additional requirement that 

flavored milk be offered in fat-free form only. 

37 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 

38FNS caps individual school take rates at the 

food group category to 100 percent. We also attempt 

to include the contribution of component foods in 

combination entrees in our estimates of take rates 

for the major food groups (fruit, milk, vegetables, 

grains, and meat/meat alternates). 

Milk: This impact analysis estimates 

that the amount of milk served to 

students will not change after 

implementation of the rule.35 However, 

the rule does require schools to serve 

only low-fat or fat-free milk in the 

school meals programs.36 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 estimated cost of serving 

milk under the rule is reduced. Some 

comments on the proposed rule noted 

that schools had already made the 

transition to fat-free and low-fat milk, 

and that there would be no savings as 

a result of this provision. We discuss 

this and other comments in Section E. 

Fruit Juice: The estimate assumes that 

schools will satisfy the rule’s increased 

fruit requirement entirely through 

additional servings of whole or cut-up 

fruit, not fruit juice. We expect that 

schools will 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 will 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 will 

increase after implementation of the 

rule. 

Grains: The 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 

transition is reflected in the large 

changes in both the whole grain and 

refined grain figures between FY 2014 

and FY 2016. 

This analysis estimates that the total 

amount of grain products served will be 

less after implementation of the final 

rule than the amount served in our 

baseline (the per-meal amount taken by 

students according to 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 is 

substantially greater than 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 added 

cost of serving higher priced whole 

grain products about equals the savings 

from a reduction in grains 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.37 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 final rule.38 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.006</GPH>
4124 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

39As discussed elsewhere in this impact analysis, 

our take rate assumptions are intended to avoid 

understating the cost of the 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 F. 

40 IOM 2009, p. 136. 

41FNS 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. 

vegetables, refined grains, and higher fat 

milk on current school menus.39 IOM 

modified observed take rates from 

SNDA–III where the expert judgment of 

committee members and school meal 

practitioners deemed it appropriate.40

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. 

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 rule’s 

requirements; 

• Forging new relationships with 

local farmers to supply fresh produce 

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 rule also increases the scope of 

State Agency administrative reviews of 

SFAs by combining the current 

Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) with 

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 State Agency 

administrative review every three years, 

rather than two reviews (one CRE and 

one SMI) every five years. 

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 rule, and to remove 

barriers that may hinder compliance. 

Many changes associated with 

implementation of the rule may result in 

an increased burden and additional 

required level of effort from States, such 

as: 

• Training and technical assistance: 

SAs will 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 final rule 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 

new meal patterns. SAs may also review 

SFA contracts with food service 

management companies (FSMCs). We 

have not estimated this cost, but expect 

that it will be small. 

• Monitoring and compliance: SAs 

will be required to conduct 

administrative reviews (formerly CREs 

and SMIs) more frequently, once every 

3 years for each SFA beginning in SY 

2013–2014. Nutrient analysis will be 

required for all SFAs and will become 

an additional component of each review 

(separate SMIs will be eliminated). 

Nutrient-based menus will be 

eliminated and only food-based menu 

planning will be permitted. The final 

rule drops the proposed rule 

requirement to require administrative 

reviews to cover two weeks of menus 

and production records; instead, the 

final rule keeps the current one week 

review requirement. The final rule, like 

the proposed rule, would include 

breakfast in SA administrative 

reviews.41

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 consolidated administrative 

review. That may help offset some of the 

cost of increased review frequency. A 

mid-sized State that now conducts 100 

CRE reviews might incur annual 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4125 

expenses of $200,000. Under the final 

rule, that SA could expect to conduct 2⁄3

more administrative 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 rule because of the need to provide 

additional training and technical 

assistance to SAs, and to support their 

role in the administrative review 

process, this may largely be met by 

adapting existing efforts to the new 

requirements. 

D. Food Service Equipment 

Changes in meal pattern requirements 

may require some SFAs to replace or 

purchase additional foodservice 

equipment. 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. In response to its 

solicitation, FNS received a total of 

approximately $600 million in grant 

requests from SFAs. FNS awarded 

grants for such purposes totaling $125 

million, using $100 million from funds 

provided by the 2009 American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

and $25 million provided by the FY 

2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act. 

The strong response to these grant 

programs indicates that schools could 

make productive use of an even greater 

investment in kitchen equipment. FNS 

awarded grants for such purposes 

totaling $125 million, using $100 

million from funds provided by the 

2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and $25 

million provided by the FY 2010 

Agriculture Appropriations Act. 

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 new 

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 in our 

final rule estimate. 

Our decision not to include an 

additional equipment cost in our 

proposed rule estimate generated 

comments from school officials and 

foodservice industry representatives. 

Those comments do not provide enough 

information on which to base a reliable 

estimate of the need for additional 

kitchen equipment as a result of the 

rule. The comments confirm that the 

need, where it exists, will vary 

significantly. Although we cannot 

reliably estimate the aggregate cost of 

meeting the need for additional 

equipment, we provide one estimate in 

the Section F below. Additional detail 

on the comments received from schools 

and the foodservice industry on this 

point is discussed in Section E. 

E. Comments on Proposed Rule 

As noted in the preamble to the final 

rule, USDA received more than 130,000 

comments on the proposed rule. 

Comments on the content of the rule 

itself are discussed in the preamble. 

Other comments, addressed specifically 

to the proposed rule’s impact analysis, 

are discussed here. 

a. Proposed Rule is Too Costly 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that the proposed rule was too costly. 

Schools and school districts would not 

be able to meet the proposed rule’s meal 

standards without additional resources 

from Federal, State, or local 

governments. Some of these 

commenters noted that the cost of the 

proposed rule exceeded the 6 cents per 

lunch that would follow adoption of the 

new meal requirements. Many also 

noted that State and local governments 

were not in a position to provide school 

districts with additional funding. The 

result, some commenters warned, was 

that schools might stop serving 

reimbursable breakfasts under the SBP. 

Other commenters suggested that 

schools might even stop serving 

reimbursable NSLP lunches. 

In response to these comments, the 

final rule modifies the proposed rule’s 

meal pattern requirements. The effect of 

those modifications is to reduce the cost 

to schools and SFAs of implementing 

the rule. The modifications are 

discussed in detail in the rule, and 

summarized in Section II of this impact 

analysis. The modifications offer 

schools short term savings, relative to 

the proposed rule, by phasing in the 

rule’s breakfast fruit and grain 

requirements. As a result of elimination 

of the proposed rule’s breakfast meat 

requirement, the ongoing cost of the 

final rule after full implementation is 

also reduced. 

Eliminating the proposed limit on the 

amount of starchy vegetables that 

schools may offer at lunch has little 

effect on the cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule. Significant 

savings are realized through a reduction 

in the lunch pattern’s grain requirement. 

Part of the difference in the estimated 

5-year costs of the proposed and final 

rules is due to lower projected food cost 

inflation and increased student 

participation since preparation of the 

proposed rule estimate. To facilitate 

comparison of the estimated costs of the 

proposed and final rules, we prepared 

two estimates of the final rule’s 

provisions. The first uses the most 

current food inflation and student 

participation figures; this is our primary 

estimate summarized in Table 6. The 

second applies the same food inflation 

and student participation estimates that 

we used in our proposed rule cost 

estimate. That is, we use the projections 

of food inflation for years after FY 2009 

that we developed for the proposed rule. 

(Our primary estimate for the final rule 

uses actual inflation through August 

2011, and an updated projection for 

years after FY 2011.) The difference 

between this second estimate and the 

estimated cost of the proposed rule 

provides a more direct measure of the 

reduction in cost due to changes in the 

content of the proposed and final rules. 

Using that difference as our basis of 

comparison, the final rule reduces costs 

over the first 5 years by almost $3 

billion, or 44 percent, as compared to 

the proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4126 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

42Section 201 of HHFKA provides an additional 

6 cents to schools for each NSLP lunch that meets 

this rule’s meal pattern requirements. 43Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 117, pp. 35301– 

35318. 

44 ‘‘The [USDA] Commodity Program has made 

substantial improvements in its offerings in recent 

years to become better aligned with Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and to be more 

responsive to its ‘customers.’ ’’ (IOM 2009, p. 188) 

45This is just a summary of recent changes 

adopted by schools. Schools have been moving 

toward 2005 Dietary Guidelines standards over 

several years. 

46Figures taken from the SNA’s Web site 

(http://www.schoolnutrition.org/ 

Content.aspx?id=6926, accessed 10/10/11). 

TABLE 12—REDUCTION IN ESTIMATED COST OF FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED RULE

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2 

Final rule—primary estimate ............................................ 41.6 286.2 362.1 1,220.2 1,279.7 3,189.9 

Difference .................................................................. ¥139.8 ¥960.6 ¥1,039.7 ¥703.6 ¥761.6 ¥3,605.3 

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2 

Final rule—with proposed rule inflation and participation 

estimates ...................................................................... 53.5 376.0 474.8 1,419.0 1,511.1 3,834.5 

Difference .................................................................. ¥127.9 ¥870.6 ¥ 927.0 ¥504.8 ¥530.2 ¥2,960.7 

In response to comments that an 

additional 6 cents per reimbursable 

lunch 42 falls short of our estimated per 

meal cost of the proposed rule, we point 

out that the HHFKA contains a 

comprehensive package of school lunch 

and breakfast reforms. These reforms are 

intended to both increase the quality of 

school meals and competitive school 

foods offered to students, and to address 

financial and funding issues. These 

latter provisions are expected to 

increase the amount of revenue 

generated by SFAs while eliminating 

the subsidization of paid lunches and 

non-program foods with Federal funds 

meant to support reimbursable meals 

generally, and meals served to free and 

reduced-price eligible children in 

particular. The impact analysis 

contained in the interim final rule 

prepared for Sections 205 and 206 of 

HHFKA estimates that those provisions 

will increase SFA revenues by $7.5 

billion through FY 2015.43 HHFKA 

section 205 is designed to gradually 

reduce the disparity in per-meal school 

revenue from reimbursable paid lunches 

relative to the per-meal Federal 

reimbursement for free lunches. Section 

206 requires schools to increase the 

share of SFA revenue generated by 

nonprogram foods to a level at least as 

great as nonprogram food’s contribution 

to total SFA food costs. 

b. Costs Are Understated 

Some commenters felt that the cost 

estimate presented in the proposed rule 

is understated. As we describe in 

Section III.B.2., our methodology relies 

primarily on data collected by USDA in 

SNDA–III to estimate the types and 

quantities of food offered by schools to 

program participants. SNDA–III 

collected information from schools in 

SY 2004–2005. We believe that our use 

of the data from that study, which is 

several years old, presents a greater risk 

of overstatement than understatement of 

the cost of the rule, holding other factors 

constant. The Dietary Guidelines 

Advisory Committee completed its 2005 

report in August 2004, just as SY 2004– 

2005 began. The 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines policy document was 

released by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services and USDA 

in January 2005. These documents were 

released as SNDA–III data was being 

collected—too soon for substantial 

changes prompted by the Dietary 

Guidelines to be reflected in meals 

offered to students. 

In the years since data was collected 

for SNDA–III, schools and USDA have 

taken steps to bring school meals into 

closer compliance with the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines. One example, cited by IOM, 

is the recent improvement in USDA 

Foods offered to schools through the 

USDA’s commodity programs.44 These 

changes provide schools with an 

increased variety of whole grain, low 

fat, and low sodium products for use in 

healthier school meals. Other changes 

have been initiated by schools. The 

School Nutrition Association’s 2010 

‘‘Back to School Trends Report’’ 

highlights some of the most recent 

changes that schools are making in 

anticipation of new Federal 

standards: 45

95% of schools districts are increasing 

offerings of whole grain products. 

90.5% are increasing availability of 

fresh fruits/vegetables. 

69% of districts are reducing or 

eliminating sodium in foods. 

66% of districts are reducing or 

limiting added sugar. 

51% of districts are increasing 

vegetarian options.46

Our use of SNDA–III data means that 

our cost estimate does not reflect the 

most recent progress that schools have 

made toward adoption of Dietary 

Guidelines recommendations. At least 

one non-profit organization offered a 

comment on the proposed rule that 

concurs with that assessment. The 

commenter’s primary point was that we 

overstate the savings from replacing 

more expensive high fat milk with less 

expensive low fat and fat free varieties; 

the commenter notes that many schools 

have already made that transition. We 

acknowledge that the potential savings 

of the final rule’s milk provision may be 

overstated in our cost estimate. But that 

savings is potentially overstated for the 

same reason that the costs of meeting 

the rule’s other food group requirements 

may be overstated. Schools have taken 

recent steps to adopt Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations on vegetables, fruit, 

whole grains, and sodium; schools’ 

gradual adoption of Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations has not been limited 

to milk. Because our projected savings 

from the rule’s milk provision is much 

lower than our projected cost of the 

rule’s vegetable, fruit, and whole grains 

provisions, we believe that the risk that 

we overstate the cost of the rule exceeds 

the risk that we understate its cost. 

c. Analysis Does Not Capture Full Effect 

of Recent Food Inflation 

Some commenters argued that we 

understated or did not adequately 

account for food inflation in our 

proposed rule cost estimate. Both our 

proposed and final rule cost estimates 

use food group specific inflation figures 

from the BLS to estimate current year 

prices (FY 2011 prices for the final rule 

analysis) from a set of baseline prices 

paid by schools in SY 2005–2006 (taken 

from the SLBCS–II). Both analyses use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4127 

those current year estimates to project 

prices through FY 2016. 

In our final rule estimate we use a 7- 

year historic average of food inflation, 

by food group, to project prices. Our 

proposed rule estimate used a 5-year 

historic average to inflate food costs. In 

developing our final rule estimate we 

recognized that actual food price 

inflation since we prepared our 

proposed rule estimate was 

substantially lower than inflation over 

the previous 5 years. We adopted a 7- 

year historic average in our final rule 

cost projections in order to temper the 

effects of relatively low recent food 

price inflation. This yields a slightly 

higher estimate for our final rule than 

we would have gotten had we used an 

updated 5-year average projection 

factor. We do this to avoid the risk of 

understating the cost of the final rule. 

d. Analysis Does Not Account for 

Higher Costs of Healthier Foods 

Some commenters referred 

specifically to the higher costs of whole 

grains and vegetables emphasized by the 

rule. Others referred to the additional 

costs necessary to produce low-sodium 

school meals. We address these 

separately. 

Higher Prices for Food Groups 

Emphasized by the Rule 

Our proposed rule and final rule cost 

estimates develop separate prices for 

each of the food subgroups with specific 

standards in the rule. For example, we 

estimate separate prices for whole grains 

and refined grains, for whole fruit and 

fruit juice, and for the dark green, redorange, starchy, and ‘‘other’’ vegetable 

subgroups. In each of these cases, we 

estimate higher unit prices for the food 

subgroups emphasized by the rule. In 

some cases the price premium for these 

food subgroups may reflect lower 

supply in the school food marketplace. 

As industry increases the supply of 

these products in response to higher 

school demand, economies of scale may 

reduce their cost. Our cost estimates for 

both the proposed and final rules 

discount the possibility that prices for 

these foods may moderate over time. 

Again, we do this to avoid understating 

the cost of the rule. 

Added Cost of Producing Meals With 

Less Sodium 

The proposed rule’s first intermediate 

sodium targets were designed to be met 

by schools through menu and recipe 

changes using currently available foods. 

The proposed rule’s second 

intermediate target was designed to be 

met with the help of the food industry 

through changes that can be met with 

current food processing technology. The 

proposed rule analysis stated that ‘‘a 

reduction in sodium can be achieved at 

minimal cost, at least over the short 

term, when sodium requirements are 

only partially phased-in.’’ But the 

analysis also noted that meeting the 

rule’s sodium targets would likely 

require replacing some packaged foods 

with foods prepared from scratch. To 

clarify, we recognize that meeting even 

the first sodium target has some cost; 

however, we do not estimate that as a 

separate component cost in either the 

proposed or final rule analyses. Much of 

the cost of meeting the proposed and 

final rules’ short term sodium targets is 

contained in the cost of substituting 

prepared foods for foods cooked from 

scratch in schools or central kitchens. 

We account for this in our labor cost 

estimate. Our proposed and final rule 

analyses estimate that labor costs will 

rise nearly dollar for dollar with food 

costs. Over 5 years, the final rule 

estimates that labor costs will increase 

by $1.6 billion. 

Our cost estimate extends only 

through FY 2016, two years before the 

final rule’s second sodium target takes 

effect. As a result, we do not estimate 

the cost of meeting that target in SY 

2017–2018, or the rule’s final sodium 

target in SY 2022–2023. However, two 

provisions in the final rule respond to 

the challenge of meeting those targets. 

The first is a delay in the second 

intermediate target from 4 years postimplementation in the proposed rule to 

5 years in the final rule. Lengthening the 

transition to lower sodium foods is 

intended, in part, to facilitate student 

acceptance. But it also gives industry 

more time to develop products that meet 

the rule’s standards. To the extent that 

limited supply is a school cost issue, 

delaying the second intermediate target 

to 5 years should help reduce costs. The 

final rule also promises USDA review of 

schools’ progress toward the rule’s final 

sodium target, and allows for 

modifications to the sodium targets if 

necessary. 

e. Analysis Understates Need for 

Additional Equipment and 

Infrastructure 

School officials and others 

commented that our proposed rule 

analysis understated the need for 

additional investment in food 

preparation and storage equipment as 

schools move away from a ‘‘heat and 

hold’’ foodservice model, to a model 

that relies more on on-site preparation. 

Our proposed rule analysis discussed 

the $125 million for school foodservice 

equipment provided to schools through 

the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the FY 

2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act. 

Although the proposed rule analysis 

recognized that the demand for ARRA 

grants greatly exceeded the amount 

available, the analysis noted that much 

of that demand was driven by the 

routine need to replace aging 

equipment, costs that are appropriately 

covered by USDA meal reimbursements 

and other sources of food service 

revenue. The proposed rule analysis did 

not include an additional cost tied 

specifically to meeting the proposed 

rule meal patterns. 

Some commenters offered estimates of 

the cost required to equip schools to 

produce more foods on site. These costs 

ranged from $4,000 per school for new 

equipment, to $500,000 or more for a 

full kitchen and serving site renovation 

(an estimate given by a foodservice 

industry representative). Commenters 

indicated that preparing more meals onsite would require investment in 

additional refrigeration equipment, 

microwaves and combination ovens, 

storage space, sinks, cutting boards and 

knives. What these comments cannot 

tell us is the percent of schools in need 

of new equipment, or the average perschool cost to meet that need. If fully 

half of all schools require investments 

averaging $5,000, then the total cost of 

new equipment necessary to prepare 

meals that meet the final rule standards 

would be $250 million. In the end, we 

do not have the data necessary to 

develop a reliable estimate of need in 

excess of the routine costs of replacing 

outdated equipment. In Section F we 

present an alternate cost estimate of the 

final rule under a different assumption 

about the need for additional 

investment in school kitchen 

equipment. 

F. 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 

13. In most cases, our primary estimate 

reflects conservative assumptions, to 

avoid understating the costs of the rule. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4128 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 13—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 new 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 our final rule cost estimate. Different take rate assumptions could produce higher or lower cost 

estimates. Take rates higher than the ones used in our estimate imply that students will select more foods from 

menus that meet final rule standards than they now select from more familiar current school menus; we believe 

that risk is reasonably low, at least in the short term. It may be more likely that actual take rates will fall below 

our estimates. However, the possibility of lower take rates is constrained by the requirement that students select 

enough components to constitute a reimbursable meal. 

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 will incorporate new foods into their menus, and what 

changes schools will 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 final rule 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 rules and under the 

new rule. We believe it is reasonable to ignore the value of USDA Foods in computing the estimated cost increase of the rule. 

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 will 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. Nevertheless, USDA received 

comments from some individuals and organizations indicating that our proposed rule understates the likely increase in labor costs. To respond to these comments, we re-estimate the cost of the proposed rule assuming a 

bigger increase in labor costs in Section F. 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, fat 

free and low fat milk compared to 2 percent or whole milk, whole fruit compared to fruit juice, and vegetables by 

subgroup. 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 final rule would limit this to 10 

percent—a relatively modest reduction. 

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

the cost of shifting to a wider variety of vegetables. 

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 

mention above that that the first intermediate sodium target can be achieved with changes to school menus and 

preparation methods using foods already available in the marketplace. To the extent that the rule’s first sodium 

target requires more on-site preparation of meals, we account for that in our labor cost estimate. We estimate 

that the additional cost of acquiring lower sodium versions of processed foods to meet the rule’s initial sodium 

target will be minimal. This is one of the very few assumptions that, if wrong, tends to understate the cost of the 

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. 

a. Change in Participation—2 Percent 

Increase 

As discussed in Table 13 above, we 

assumed that student participation 

would not change following the 

introduction of new meal requirements. 

Table 14 Sections A and B model the 

effects of altering that assumption. 

Section A 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 A are the 

estimated cost to schools of preparing 

all meals served under our baseline 

assumption plus an additional 2 

percent; the costs are not just limited to 

the incremental per-meal costs of the 

final rule. The additional meals are 

eligible for USDA reimbursement at the 

appropriate free, reduced price, or paid 

rates. However, the figures shown in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4129 

47This reduction in cost comes at the expense of 

reduced federal meal reimbursements. 

48This estimate includes a proportionate increase 

in labor costs to remain consistent with our labor 

cost methodology. 

Section A 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 $1.3 billion increase over the cost 

of our primary estimate. 

b. Change in Participation—2 Percent 

Decrease 

Table 14, Section B 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 6.47

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. This 

reduction in cost is a reduction in the 

entire cost of serving 2 percent fewer 

meals, not just the incremental per-meal 

cost of complying with the final rule. 

Schools would realize a partially 

offsetting decrease in Federal meal 

reimbursements; that offset is not shown 

in Table 14. The effect of a 2 percent 

decrease in student participation would 

be to decrease the cost of implementing 

the final rule by $1.3 billion. 

c. Higher 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. 

At least one change reflected in the 

final rule is intended, in part, to help 

reduce labor costs relative to the 

proposed rule. The proposed rule 

included a separate meat standard for 

breakfast. The final rule drops that 

requirement, preserving schools’ ability 

to serve meat as a substitute for grains 

at breakfast, but not requiring schools to 

offer meat. USDA expects that this 

change will support schools that serve 

breakfast in the classroom, a model that 

may require less labor cost than 

breakfast served in the school cafeteria. 

Although we believe that the risk that 

we overstate the labor costs necessary to 

implement the rule is as likely as the 

risk that we understate labor costs, 

comments received from school officials 

and foodservice and nutrition 

professionals argue that our labor cost 

estimate may be too low. Commenters 

cited the need to hire new kitchen staff 

to prepare more meals from scratch as 

a factor that might change the current 

ratio of labor to food costs. 

Our primary labor cost estimate relies 

on the observation that the ratio of labor 

to food costs was about the same at two 

points measured 13 years apart. We 

acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in 

the assumption that this ratio will 

remain unchanged even as substantial 

changes to the meal patterns are 

implemented by schools. And we 

therefore recognize the risk that the 

absolute dollar cost for labor in our final 

rule estimate is too low. If the cost of 

labor needed to implement the final rule 

exceeds the amount in our primary 

estimate by 10 percent, then the cost of 

the final rule would rise by $160 

million. 

d. Higher Food Inflation 

The final rule estimate’s food inflation 

methodology in described section 

III.B.1. That discussion notes that 

inflation over the most recent 2 years 

was lower for most food subgroups than 

inflation over the five years prior to 

those two. Our proposed rule estimate 

used a 5-year historic average to project 

food costs through FY 2016. In an effort 

to limit the effects of low recent 

inflation on our cost estimate, our final 

rule methodology uses a 7-year average 

to project food costs, rather than a 

revised 5-year estimate using only the 

most recent food inflation figures. This 

methodology retains all of the 5 years of 

relatively high food inflation that we 

used in our proposed rule methodology. 

We took this step to minimize the risk 

of understating the cost of the final rule. 

It is possible, nevertheless, that food 

inflation will accelerate in the short 

term. If food prices from fiscal years 

2012 through 2016 match the rate of 

inflation over the five years that ended 

in FY 2009, then the cost of the final 

rule would increase by $240 million.48

e. Additional Need for Foodservice 

Equipment 

The cost estimate in our proposed 

rule (and the primary estimate in this 

final rule analysis) does not include an 

additional cost for new foodservice 

equipment. As we discuss in section E 

above, commenters offer much different 

estimates of the need for new kitchen 

equipment to prepare more foods on site 

as a means of complying with the rule. 

These figures do not allow us to 

estimate the dollar value of that need 

with any certainty. Table 14 includes a 

revised final rule estimate that assumes 

half of all schools will need to invest 

$5,000 in new kitchen equipment soon 

after implementation of the rule. We 

show half of this $250 million cost as an 

upfront expense, and the other half as 

an expense incurred in the first full year 

of implementation of the rule. 

Table 14 below assumes that State 

administrative costs are not impacted by 

any of the alternate assumptions (a–e) 

listed above. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4130 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Comparison of Proposed Rule and 

Final Rule Costs 

The key differences between our 

proposed rule and final rule cost 

estimates are discussed in previous 

sections of this RIA. Most of the 

estimated reduction in cost is due to 

policy changes, but a significant 

reduction is also realized by lower food 

inflation since preparation of the 

proposed rule cost estimate. 

Inflation and Other Economic 

Assumptions 

The proposed rule used actual food 

price inflation through the end of FY 

2009. The final rule incorporates nearly 

two additional years of actual food price 

inflation. Inflation over the two years 

ending in August 2011 was lower for 

most of the food groups affected by the 

rule than it was in the five previous 

years. This reduces our baseline cost of 

food as well as our projection of food 

prices through the RIA’s forecast period. 

The final rule also uses USDA 

projections of school meal participation 

contained in the 2012 President’s 

budget. The proposed rule relied on 

data in the 2011 President’s budget. The 

more recent participation projections 

slightly increase the cost of the breakfast 

meal patterns and reduce the cost of the 

lunch meal patterns relative to the 

proposed rule. The net effect of changes 

to our food inflation and student 

participation projections is a 5-year 

$730 million reduction in the cost of the 

final rule relative to the proposal. 

Breakfast Meal Patterns 

The most significant reduction in the 

estimated cost of the final rule relative 

to the proposed rule is due to changes 

in the final rule’s breakfast provisions. 

The final rule’s phased implementation 

of the meal pattern’s fruit and grain 

requirements, and elimination of the 

proposed rule’s separate meat and meat 

alternate requirement reduce the cost of 

the rule by $2.7 billion over 5 years. 

Lunch Meal Patterns 

Additional savings are realized 

through a reduction in the final rule’s 

lunch meal pattern grain requirement 

relative to the proposed rule. The final 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4131 

49 $1.5 billion is CBO’s estimate of additional 

budget authority for HHFKA’s ‘‘Performance-Based 

Rate Increase’’ through FY 2016, less $100 million 

($50 million for administrative expenses in fiscal 

years 2012 and 2013) . See Table 2 in CBO’s April 

20, 2010 cost estimate for HHFKA. http:// 

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11451/ 

HealthyHungerFreeKidsAct.pdf (accessed 11/06/ 

11). 

50See the interim final rule and regulatory impact 

analysis for ‘‘School Food Service Account Revenue 

Amendments Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010’’, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 

117, pp. 35301–35318. 

rule also includes changes to the 

vegetable component of the proposed 

rule’s lunch meal pattern. The final rule 

eliminates the proposed rule’s 1 cup per 

week limit on starchy vegetables, and it 

replaces the proposed rule’s orange 

vegetable subgroup with a red/orange 

group that now includes tomatoes. 

Replacement of the orange vegetable 

subgroup with a red/orange subgroup 

was prompted by the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines. The final rule reduces the 

weekly requirement for ‘‘other’’ 

vegetables, which previously included 

tomatoes, and increases the requirement 

for red/orange vegetables relative to the 

proposed rule requirement for orange 

vegetables. The net effect of changes to 

the vegetable and grain requirements at 

lunch is a relatively modest $150 

million reduction in cost over 5 years. 

TABLE 15—CHANGES IN COST OF THE FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED RULE

Fiscal year 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2 

Updated economic and participation projections ..... ¥15.9 ¥114.8 ¥141.1 ¥211.3 ¥248.2 ¥731.2 

Changes to breakfast meal pattern requirements .... ¥120.5 ¥822.7 ¥871.4 ¥446.4 ¥465.6 ¥2,726.7 

Changes to lunch meal pattern requirements .......... ¥3.4 ¥23.0 ¥27.1 ¥45.8 ¥47.8 ¥147.3 

Final rule .......................................................................... 41.6 286.2 362.1 1,220.2 1,279.7 3,189.9 

H. Implementation of Final Rule—SFA 

Resources 

We estimate that the new meal 

patterns may raise the average cost of 

producing and serving school lunches 

by about 5 cents on initial 

implementation of the rule. By FY 2015, 

when the food group components are 

fully phased in, the cost per lunch may 

be 10 cents higher than our baseline 

estimate; the cost per breakfast may be 

27 cents higher than our baseline. 

As we discuss in Section E, the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act contains 

a comprehensive package of school meal 

reforms that call for an update to the 

meal patterns and provide for increased 

SFA revenue. USDA estimates that the 

$3.2 billion 5-year cost of this rule is 

more than offset by the impact of other 

HHFKA provisions on SFA revenues. 

HHFKA’s meal pattern and revenue 

raising provisions are linked directly in 

the performance-based increase in 

Federal financing for school lunches. 

Schools that successfully implement the 

final rule standards will receive an 

additional 6 cent reimbursement for 

each lunch served. The Congressional 

Budget Office estimates that an 

additional 6 cents per lunch would raise 

$1.5 billion for SFAs in the first 5 years 

after implementation of the rule.49

HHFKA contains two additional 

provisions to ensure that Federal 

reimbursements are used as intended to 

provide quality meals to program 

participants. The first requires schools 

to gradually raise the per-meal revenue 

generated from paid lunches to an 

amount equal to the Federal 

reimbursement for free lunches. That 

revenue could come from student 

payments or State or local sources. The 

second requires that the revenue 

generated from non-program foods as a 

percent of food costs match the revenue 

to food cost ratio of program meals. 

USDA estimates that these two 

provisions will raise a combined $7.5 

billion in the 5 years following their 

July 1, 2011 effective date.50

Schools will face different costs to 

implement this final rule. Schools with 

menus that already emphasize fruits, a 

variety of 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 per-meal costs of complying 

with the new 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. 

Schools will also benefit differently 

from HHFKA’s revenue provisions. 

Schools with relatively few students 

who pay full price for program meals 

stand to gain little from HHFKA’s paid 

lunch provision. Similarly, schools that 

sell few a` la carte items will realize little 

revenue from an increase in a` la carte 

prices. At the same time, schools that 

serve mostly free and reduced-price 

students and sell little a` la carte can rely 

on significant Federal funding for each 

SFA dollar spent to purchase and 

prepare school foods. 

The experience of some schools 

suggests that substantial progress 

toward implementation of the rule can 

even be achieved with existing 

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 2,161 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 final 

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. Like other 

service businesses, schools may need to 

consider changes to their operations to 

increase efficiency and meet the 

requirements of the rule. HUSSC 

schools have demonstrated an ability to 

operate cost-effective school meals 

programs that meet many of the final 

rule’s requirements. These schools may 

offer models for others as 

implementation moves forward. 

I. Impact on Participation 

As noted in Table 13, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4132 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

51For 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. 

52USDA 2007, vol. II, pp. 116–117, 123–124. 

53This 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. 

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.’’ 51

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 all school districts to establish 

local wellness policies. Through these 

policies schools have made changes to 

their school nutrition environments and 

improved the quality of foods offered to 

students. In the context of these 

initiatives, implementation of the final 

rule is only the next step in a process 

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 and serving school meals may 

increase by 8 percent by FY 2015. Some 

SFAs may raise student prices for paid 

meals (above the paid lunch revenue 

target required by HHFKA) to 

compensate for some of this increase in 

cost. We recognize that 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.52 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.53 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. 

J. Benefits 

As noted in the preamble to this final 

rule, NSLA requires that 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 final 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 

rule 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 rule is 

expected to result in (1) increased 

servings of fruits and vegetables, (2) 

replacement of refined-grain 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4133 

54 IOM 2009, pp. 49–53. 

55See, for example, Smith-Spangler, 2010; 

Bibbins-Domingo, 2010. 

56Bibbins-Domingo, 2010b. 

57The 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). 

58 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, p. B1– 

2. 

59 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, pp. 

B1–2, B1–3. 

60 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, p. B3– 

6. 

61Ogden et al., 2010. 

62Trasande et al., 2009. 

63Whitaker et al., 1997; Serdula et al., May 1993. 

64Finkelstein et al., 2009 

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.54

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.55 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.56

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.57

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 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.’’ 58 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.’’ 59

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.’’ 60

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.61 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.62 Perhaps more 

significantly, obese children and 

adolescents are more likely to become 

obese as adults.63 In 2008, medical 

spending on adults that was attributed 

to obesity increased to an estimated 

$147 billion.64

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 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 

final rule 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 

1. Make No Changes to Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule closely followed 

the recommendations contained in the 

2010 report of the IOM committee 

commissioned by USDA to propose 

changes to the NSLP and SBP meal 

patterns. Those recommendations were 

designed to reflect current nutrition 

science, the Dietary Guidelines, and 

IOM’s Dietary Reference Intakes. The 

reforms contained in the proposed rule 

were well received by health and 

nutrition professionals, child advocates, 

academics, and parents. But, as 

summarized in the preamble to the final 

rule and in this analysis, school and 

SFA officials, other public sector 

officials, and the food industry 

expressed concern about the cost and 

feasibility of the proposed rule. The 

final rule reflects those concerns by 

scaling back the quantity of food 

contained in the proposal, especially at 

breakfast, eliminating the proposed 

rule’s limitations on starchy vegetables, 

phasing in some provisions, and 

extending target dates for meeting the 

proposed rule’s sodium standards. 

Those changes result in a significantly 

less costly final rule. 

One alternative to the final rule is to 

retain the proposed rule without 

change. The proposed rule closely 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4134 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

65Table 16 also includes the effect of reclassifying 

tomatoes as a ‘‘red/orange’’ vegetable. Tomatoes 

were included in the ‘‘other’’ vegetable subgroup in 

our proposed rule cost estimate. Moving tomatoes 

from the ‘‘other’’ vegetable subgroup to the new 

‘‘red/orange’’ subgroup is one of the changes 

contained in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Moving 

tomatoes back to the ‘‘other’’ vegetable subgroup for 

school meals was not considered by USDA and is 

therefore not reflected in this alternative to the final 

rule. 

66For purposes of this estimate, reclassifying 

tomatoes as a ‘‘red/orange’’ vegetable is considered 

to be one of the final rule’s lunch meal pattern 

changes. 

followed IOM’s recommendations. IOM 

developed its recommendations to 

encourage student consumption of foods 

recommended by the Dietary Guidelines 

in quantities designed to provide 

necessary nutrients without excess 

calories. The final rule still achieves 

that goal. Students will still be 

presented with choices from the food 

groups and vegetable subgroups 

recommended by the Dietary 

Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, 

like the proposed rule, will help 

children recognize and choose foods 

consistent with a healthy diet. 

The most significant differences 

between the proposed and final rules 

are in the breakfast meal patterns, and 

those differences are largely a matter of 

timing. The final rule allows schools 

more time to phase-in key IOM 

recommendations on fruit and grains at 

breakfast. Once fully implemented, the 

most important difference between the 

final and proposed rule breakfast meal 

patterns is the elimination of a separate 

meat/meat alternate requirement. That 

change preserves current rules that 

allow the substitution of meat for grains 

at breakfast. It also responds to general 

public comments on cost, and on the 

need to preserve schools’ flexibility to 

serve breakfast outside of a traditional 

cafeteria setting. 

Even with these changes, and with the 

less significant changes to the proposed 

lunch standards, the final rule remains 

consistent with Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations. The added flexibility 

and reduced cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule should 

increase schools’ ability to comply with 

the new meal patterns. The final rule’s 

less costly breakfast patterns will make 

it easier for schools to maintain or 

expand current breakfast programs, and 

may encourage other schools to adopt a 

breakfast program. 

Table 16 estimates the cost of the 

proposed rule using updated projections 

of student participation and food 

inflation. The estimated 5-year cost of 

the final rule, from Table 6, is $2.9 

billion lower than this updated cost 

estimate of the proposed rule. 

[Note that the estimate in Table 16 is 

about 10 percent lower than our cost 

estimate for the same set of provisions 

in the proposed rule Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. The difference between the 

two estimates reflects lower food 

inflation for most food groups since 

preparation of the proposed rule 

estimate.65 As we discuss in Section 

III.B.1., lower recent inflation also 

reduces our projection of future price 

increases.] 

2. Adopt Final Rule Lunch Meal Pattern 

Changes; Retain Proposed Rule 

Breakfast Patterns 

From Alternative 1, above, we 

estimate that cost of the final rule is $2.9 

billion lower than the cost of the 

proposed rule. Table 17 makes clear that 

most of this reduction is due to the final 

rule’s breakfast meal pattern changes. 

Adopting all of the lunch provisions 

contained in the final rule,66 but 

retaining the proposed rule’s breakfast 

provisions, would cost an estimated 

$5.9 billion over 5 years, or $2.7 billion 

more than final rule. This alternative 

responds less effectively than the final 

rule to comments received by USDA 

from SFA and school administrators 

who expressed concerns about the cost 

of the proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.008</GPH> ER26JA12.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4135 

3. Adopt Final Rule Breakfast Meal 

Pattern Changes; Retain Proposed Rule 

Lunch Patterns 

This alternative highlights the 

relatively small difference in the cost of 

the proposed and final rule lunch 

provisions. The two key differences in 

the proposed and final rule lunch 

provisions have largely offsetting costs. 

The combined effect of moving tomatoes 

to the new red/orange vegetable 

subgroup, and the associated changes in 

the minimum cup requirements of the 

red/orange, starchy, and ‘‘other’’ 

vegetable subgroups have the effect of 

increasing the cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule. The final 

rule’s reduction in the lunch meal 

pattern’s grain ounce equivalent 

requirement reduces the cost of the final 

rule relative to the proposed rule. 

V. Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a4.pdf), we have prepared an accounting 

statement showing the annualized 

estimates of benefits, costs and transfers 

associated with the provisions of this 

final rule. 

VI. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.010</GPH> ER26JA12.011</GPH>
4136 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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/SNDAIII– 

SummaryofFindings.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 

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. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. (USDA/HHS 2010) Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th 

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

Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/ 

PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.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. 

VII. 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. 

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 5 columns 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 Table A– 

3. 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, and shows our 

projection of total costs through FY 

2016. 

Table A–3 resembles Table A–2. It 

takes the weighted average prices per 

meal by meal component 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4137 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.012</GPH>
4138 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4139 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER26JA12.014</GPH>
4140 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

67FNS 742 School Food Verification Survey, 

School Year 2009–2010. This number is 

approximate, not all SFAs are required to submit 

the 742 form. 

68 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. 

69FNS program data for FY 2010. 

70U.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. 

71 Ibid. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Final 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. In addition, Section 201 of 

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010 (HHFKA) requires the Secretary to 

issue regulations to update the school 

meal patterns based on 

recommendations of the Institute of 

Medicine. This final rule amends 

Sections 210 and 220 of the regulations 

that govern the National School Lunch 

Program (NSLP) and the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP). USDA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on January 13, 2011 

(76 FR 2494) that closely followed 

IOM’s recommendations. USDA 

received and processed more than 

130,000 comments on the proposed 

rule. USDA considered those comments 

in developing a final rule that continues 

to advance the goals of the IOM while 

responding to concerns about the cost of 

implementation, and the need for 

flexibility in administration at the 

school district level. 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Final 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 and 2010 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 

Final 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.67 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 50,000.68

• 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).69 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) 2004–2005.70 Of the 2,460 

firms categorized as ‘‘food service 

contractors’’ under NAICS code 72231, 

96 percent employ fewer than 500 

workers.71

Response to Public Comments on Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

USDA received comments on the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

from school, SFA, and State education 

officials, advocacy organizations, and 

foodservice industry representatives. 

Most of those individuals were 

concerned with the cost of complying 

with the rule. Commenters pointed to 

the particular cost challenges faced by 

small schools with few foodservice 

employees, limited space for storage and 

on-site meal preparation, and the 

inability to purchase food in quantities 

necessary to get the lowest prices. These 

comments are discussed in the relevant 

sections below. 

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements 

The analysis below covers only those 

organizations impacted by the final rule 

that were determined to be small 

entities. 

School Food Authorities (SFA)/Schools 

Increased Cost To Produce School Meals 

USDA estimates that the proposed 

rule will raise the average cost of 

producing and serving school lunches 

by 5 cents on initial implementation. 

Phased implementation of the rule’s 

breakfast meal patterns results in no 

first year costs. By FY 2015, when all of 

the lunch and breakfast food group 

requirements are in place, the cost per 

lunch will be about 10 cents higher than 

our baseline estimate; the cost per 

breakfast will be about 27 cents higher. 

Across all SFAs we estimate that the 

total cost of compliance will be $3.2 

billion over five years. Although about 

99 percent of SFAs enroll fewer than 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4141 

72U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Research, Nutrition and 

Analysis, School Lunch and Breakfast Cost StudyII, Final Report, by Susan Bartlett, et al., 2008, pp. 

3–2—3–5. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/ 

Published/CNP/FILES/MealCostStudy.pdf. 

73The study could not conclude whether the 

price advantage of large districts was a result of ‘‘an 

economy of scale based on the volume of food they 

are purchasing, the use of highly centralized 

procurement systems or formal procurement and 

pricing methods typically found in large school 

districts, the accessibility to more vendors leading 

to a more competitive marketplace, or a 

combination of factors.’’ U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 

Analysis and Evaluation, School Food Purchase 

Study Final Report (Executive Summary), by Lynn 

Daft, et al., 1998 http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/ 

MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SFPS–Execsum.pdf. 

74School Food Purchase Study Final Report, pp. 

III–14—III–15. 

75SBA’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. 

76School Food Purchase Study Final Report, p. 

VII–1. 

77 Ibid. 

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. 

With exceptions for individual 

schools, USDA expects that the cost of 

the rule will increase with meals served 

and will not be proportionately higher 

for small schools. Small schools that 

face average labor and food costs, and 

have menus typical of the average 

school are expected to incur per-meal 

costs comparable to larger schools. We 

expect that those costs will equal our 

estimated cost per meal multiplied by 

the number of meals served. 

The most important factors that 

separate schools with higher than 

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 should 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. 

Some commenters note that small 

districts pay more for food than larger 

districts that benefit from volume 

discounts. Others suggest that prices for 

whole grain and reduced fat products 

are higher in small, rural communities. 

USDA’s School Lunch and Breakfast 

Cost Study II (SLBCS) finds that the permeal costs of producing school 

breakfasts are higher in small districts 

than in large districts.72 But the study 

finds no statistically significant 

difference by SFA size in the cost of 

producing a school lunch. 

SLBCS finds that at least some of the 

higher cost incurred by small districts to 

produce a school breakfast is due to the 

fixed costs of operating a small program. 

The study does not, however, address 

how much might be due to higher food 

prices. USDA’s School Food Purchase 

Study (SFPS) found that large districts 

do tend to pay less than small districts 

for food on a per-unit basis.73 But the 

study also found that ‘‘the relationship 

[between small SFA size and higher 

food costs] is weak for districts of less 

than 5,000 enrollment.’’ Although SFPS 

found that small districts tend to pay 

more for food, it also found that small 

districts charge students the least for 

full-price school meals.74

Increased Cost of Administering School 

Meals Programs 

USDA expects that SFAs will incur 

additional administrative costs for staff 

training during implementation of the 

new standards. The final rule replaces 

the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) 

and School Meals Initiative (SMI) with 

a combined State Agency administrative 

review. The new review will be held 

once every 3 years, instead of once 

every 5 years. The increased frequency 

of the combined review will increase 

administrative costs for many SFAs. 

However, 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. 

USDA estimates that the proposed 

rule will result in an average 8.2 hour 

net increase in the annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for each of 7,000 

SFAs. That increase appears to fall 

below the threshold for recognition as a 

significant impact for RFA purposes.75

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. 

Data from the SLBCS confirm that 

small SFAs spend more, on average, to 

produce a school breakfast than do large 

SFAs.76 SLBCS found that higher permeal breakfast costs in small SFAs are 

due, in part, to the fixed costs of 

operating a breakfast program. For 

example, schools that choose to offer 

breakfast must pay staff to serve meals, 

no matter how few students participate. 

As schools serve more breakfasts, 

SLBCS data show that the cost per unit 

decreases; this is the case for both small 

and large SFAs.77

If the fixed costs of starting up a 

breakfast program were the only factors 

responsible for higher average breakfast 

costs in small school districts, then we 

would not expect the final rule to have 

a disproportionate effect on those 

districts. The main costs of the rule are 

variable rather than fixed: Schools must 

offer a greater variety and additional 

quantities of certain foods to each 

student. Some commenters point out, 

though, that the rule might require 

additional investment in food 

preparation and storage equipment, and 

that this imposes a special burden on 

smaller districts. But these costs are 

variable too; larger districts will spend 

more than smaller districts on similar 

types of equipment to handle a greater 

volume of food. Of course, kitchen 

equipment is not variable in the same 

sense as food. Small districts may have 

to purchase new equipment as a result 

of the final rule that they may not use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4142 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

78Part of the reduction in cost is due to a recent 

reduction in food inflation. See the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for additional detail. 

79See Table 2 in CBO’s April 20, 2010 cost 

estimate for HHFKA. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 

114xx/doc11451/HealthyHungerFreeKidsAct.pdf. 

The total increase in budget authority through FY 

2016 includes $100 million for administrative 

expenses ($50 million in each of the first 2 years). 

80See the interim final rule and regulatory impact 

analysis for ‘‘School Food Service Account Revenue 

Amendments Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act of 2010’’, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 

117, pp. 35301–35318. 

81SBA, ‘‘A Guide for Government Agencies’’, 

p. 20. 

as intensively as districts that prepare 

more meals. In that way, expenditures 

on kitchen equipment may add more to 

per-meal costs in small districts than in 

bigger districts. 

USDA Response to Public Comments on 

the Cost of the Proposed Rule 

USDA considered all comments 

submitted by the public on the proposed 

rule. Comments from school district and 

school officials, foodservice industry 

professionals, and others concerned 

with the cost of the proposed rule were 

instrumental in guiding USDA’s 

development of a less costly final rule. 

The modifications offer schools short 

term savings, relative to the proposed 

rule, by phasing in the rule’s breakfast 

fruit and grain requirements. As a result 

of elimination of the proposed rule’s 

breakfast meat requirement, the ongoing 

cost of the final rule after full 

implementation is also reduced. 

Eliminating the proposed limit on the 

amount of starchy vegetables that 

schools may offer at lunch has little 

effect on the cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule. Significant 

savings are realized through a reduction 

in the lunch pattern’s grain requirement. 

USDA estimated that the proposed 

rule would increase the costs of 

preparing and serving school meals by 

$6.8 billion over 5 years. With the 

changes discussed above, the 5-year cost 

of the rule is reduced to $3.2 billion.78

The reduction in cost will benefit SFAs 

of any size that might have had 

difficulty implementing the proposed 

rule standards. 

Options for Addressing Increased Costs 

Although changes to the final rule 

significantly reduce the implementation 

costs faced by SFAs, the rule still 

requires a substantial investment by 

schools and school districts to improve 

the nutritional quality of school meals. 

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 

2010 (HHFKA), which is one of the 2 

statutory directives behind this 

rulemaking, also contains provisions 

intended to reform school meal 

financing. USDA estimates that those 

provisions will increase SFA revenues 

enough to fully offset the cost of this 

rule. 

HHFKA’s meal pattern and revenue 

raising provisions are linked directly in 

the performance-based increase in 

Federal financing for school lunches. 

Schools and SFAs that successfully 

implement the final rule standards will 

receive an additional 6 cent 

reimbursement for each lunch served. 

The Congressional Budget Office 

estimates that an additional 6 cents per 

lunch would raise $1.5 billion for SFAs 

in the first 5 years after implementation 

of the rule.79

HHFKA contains two additional 

provisions to ensure that Federal 

reimbursements are used as intended to 

provide quality meals to program 

participants. The first requires SFAs to 

gradually raise the per-meal revenue 

generated from paid lunches to an 

amount equal to the Federal 

reimbursement for free lunches. That 

revenue could come from student 

payments or State or local sources. The 

second requires that the revenue 

generated from non-program foods as a 

percent of food costs match the revenue 

to food cost ratio of program meals. 

USDA estimates that these two 

provisions will raise a combined $7.5 

billion in the 5 years following their 

July 1, 2011 effective date.80

SFAs will benefit differently from 

HHFKA’s revenue provisions. SFAs 

with relatively few students who pay 

full price for program meals stand to 

gain little from HHFKA’s paid lunch 

provision. Similarly, schools that sell 

few a` la carte items will realize little 

revenue from an increase in a` la carte 

prices. At the same time, schools that 

serve mostly free and reduced-price 

students and sell little a` la carte can rely 

on significant Federal funding for each 

SFA dollar spent to purchase and 

prepare school foods. 

The experience of some schools 

suggests that substantial progress 

toward implementation of the rule can 

even be achieved with existing 

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 1,600 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 final 

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. Like other 

service businesses, schools may need to 

consider changes to their operations to 

increase efficiency and meet the 

requirements of the rule. HUSSC 

schools have demonstrated an ability to 

operate cost-effective school meals 

programs that meet many of the final 

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 should 

not be 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. Phased 

implementation of the final rule’s 

breakfast provisions, which will reduce 

up-front costs of implementation, may 

be particularly valuable to small SFAs. 

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. 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’’,81 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 Final Rule 

FNS is unaware of any such Federal 

rules or laws. 

Significant Alternatives 

One alternative to the final rule is to 

retain the proposed rule without 

change. The proposed rule closely 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4143 

followed IOM’s recommendations. IOM 

developed its recommendations to 

encourage student consumption of foods 

recommended by the Dietary Guidelines 

in quantities designed to provide 

necessary nutrients without excess 

calories. The final rule still achieves 

that goal. Students will still be 

presented with choices from the food 

groups and vegetable subgroups 

recommended by the Dietary 

Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, 

like the proposed rule, will help 

children recognize and choose foods 

consistent with a healthy diet. 

The most significant differences 

between the proposed and final rules 

are in the breakfast meal patterns, and 

those differences are largely a matter of 

timing. The final rule allows schools 

more time to phase-in key IOM 

recommendations on fruit and grains at 

breakfast. Once fully implemented, the 

most important difference between the 

final and proposed rule breakfast meal 

patterns is the elimination of a separate 

meat/meat alternate requirement. That 

change preserves current rules that 

allow the substitution of meat for grains 

at breakfast. It also responds to general 

public comments on cost, and on the 

need to preserve schools’ flexibility to 

serve breakfast outside of a traditional 

cafeteria setting. 

Even with these changes, and with the 

less significant changes to the proposed 

lunch standards, the final rule remains 

consistent with Dietary Guidelines 

recommendations. The added flexibility 

and reduced cost of the final rule 

relative to the proposed rule should 

increase schools’ ability to comply with 

the new meal patterns. The final rule’s 

less costly breakfast patterns will make 

it easier for schools to maintain or 

expand current breakfast programs, and 

may encourage other schools to adopt a 

breakfast program. 

Implementing the proposed rule, 

without changes, would increase the 

cost to SFAs of implementing the new 

meal patterns, relative to the final rule, 

by an estimated $2.9 billion over 5 

years. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 210 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping 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 recordkeeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 

are 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 definitions of Tofu and 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 to be offered to students in 

grades K–5 are: Meats/meat alternates, 

grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk. 

Meals offered to preschoolers must 

consist of four food components: 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. 

* * * * * 

Tofu means a soybean-derived food, 

made by a process in which soybeans 

are soaked, ground, mixed with water, 

heated, filtered, coagulated, and formed 

into cakes. Basic ingredients are whole 

soybeans, one or more food-grade 

coagulants (typically a salt or an acid), 

and water. Tofu products must conform 

to FNS guidance to count toward the 

meats/meat alternates component. 

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 Federal reimbursement 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4144 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for them. Schools must identify, near or 

at the beginning of the serving line(s), 

the food items that constitute the unitpriced reimbursable school meal(s). The 

price of a reimbursable lunch does not 

change if the student does not take a 

food item or requests smaller portions. 

(3) 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. 

(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) The meal 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: 

Meal pattern 

Lunch meal pattern 

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Amount of food a per week 

(minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) b ................................................................................................................... 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) b .......................................................................................................... 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 5 (1) 

Dark green c .............................................................................................................. 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Red/Orange c ............................................................................................................ 3⁄4 3⁄4 11⁄4

Beans and peas (legumes) c .................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Starchy c .................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Other c d ............................................................................................................................ 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

Additional Veg to Reach Total e ...................................................................................... 1 e 1 e 11⁄2 e

Grains (oz eq)f ................................................................................................................ 8–9 (1) 8–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ........................................................................................ 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Fluid milk (cups) g ............................................................................................................ 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

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

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h ................................................................................. < 10 < 10 < 10 

Sodium (mg) h i ................................................................................................................. ≤ 640 ≤ 710 ≤ 740 

Trans fat h ........................................................................................................................ Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must 

indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving. 

aFood items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. bOne quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or 

vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. c Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served. 

dThis category consists of ‘‘Other vegetables’’ as defined in § 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, the ‘‘Other vegetables’’ requirement may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined 

in § 210.10(c)(2)(iii). eAny vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement. 

fBeginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), at least half of grains offered must be whole grain-rich. Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–15), all 

grains must be whole grain-rich. gBeginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), all fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored). 

h 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. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent are not allowed. iFinal sodium targets must be met no later than July 1, 2022 (SY 2022–2023). The first intermediate target must be met no later than SY 

2014–2015 and the second intermediate target must be met no later than SY 2017–2018. See required intermediate specifications in 

§ 210.10(f)(3). 

(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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4145 

(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 

to students in grades K–8 and a 

minimum of two ounces is offered daily 

to students in grades 9–12, and the total 

weekly requirement is met over a fiveday 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 

of the meats/meat alternates component 

or the grains component but may not 

meet 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 FNS 

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. 

(D) Tofu and soy products. 

Commercial tofu and soy products may 

be used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

Noncommercial and/or nonstandardized tofu and soy products are 

not creditable. 

(E) Beans and Peas (legumes). Cooked 

dry beans and peas (legumes) may be 

used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component. Beans and 

peas (legumes) are identified in this 

section and include foods such as black 

beans, garbanzo beans, lentils, kidney 

beans, mature lima beans, navy beans, 

pinto beans, and split peas. 

(F) Other Meat Alternates. Other meat 

alternates, such as cheese and eggs, may 

be used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

(ii) Fruits component. Schools must 

offer fruits daily as part of the lunch 

menu. Fruits that are fresh; frozen 

without added 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, fullstrength 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 dry beans and peas 

(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 and tomato paste and 

puree are credited based on calculated 

volume of the whole food equivalency. 

Pasteurized, full-strength vegetable juice 

may be used to meet no more than onehalf of the vegetables component. 

Cooked dry beans or peas (legumes) may 

be counted as either a vegetable or as a 

meat alternate but not as both in the 

same meal. Vegetable offerings at lunch 

over the course of the week must 

include the following vegetable 

subgroups, as defined in this section in 

the quantities specified in the meal 

pattern in paragraph (c) of this section: 

(A) Dark green vegetables. This 

subgroup includes vegetables such as 

bok choy, broccoli, collard greens, dark 

green leafy lettuce, kale, mesclun, 

mustard greens, romaine lettuce, 

spinach, turnip greens, and watercress; 

(B) Red-orange vegetables. This 

subgroup includes vegetables such as 

acorn squash, butternut squash, carrots, 

pumpkin, tomatoes, tomato juice, and 

sweet potatoes; 

(C) Beans and peas (legumes). This 

subgroup includes vegetables such as 

black beans, black-eyed peas (mature, 

dry), garbanzo beans (chickpeas), kidney 

beans, lentils, navy beans pinto beans, 

soy beans, split peas, and white beans; 

(D) Starchy vegetables. This subgroup 

includes vegetables such as black-eyed 

peas (not dry), corn, cassava, green 

bananas, green peas, green lima beans, 

plantains, taro, water chestnuts, and 

white potatoes; and 

(E) Other vegetables. This subgroup 

includes all other fresh, frozen, and 

canned vegetables, cooked or raw, such 

as artichokes, asparagus, avocado, bean 

sprouts, beets, Brussels sprouts, 

cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, 

eggplant, green beans, green peppers, 

iceberg lettuce, mushrooms, okra, 

onions, parsnips, turnips, wax beans, 

and zucchini. 

(iv) Grains component. (A) Enriched 

and whole grains. All grains must be 

made with enriched and whole grain 

meal or flour, in accordance with the 

most recent grains FNS guidance. Whole 

grain-rich products must contain at least 

51 percent whole grains and the 

remaining grains in the product must be 

enriched. 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. The 

grains component is based on minimum 

daily servings plus total servings over a 

five-day school week. Beginning July 1, 

2012 (SY 2012–2013), half of the grains 

offered during the school week must 

meet the whole grain-rich criteria 

specified in FNS guidance. Beginning 

July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015), all grains 

must meet the whole grain-rich criteria 

specified in FNS guidance. The whole 

grain-rich criteria provided in FNS 

guidance 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 (1/5) for each 

additional day. When schools operate 

less than 5 days per week, they may 

decrease the weekly quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1/5) for each 

day less than five. The servings for 

biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/ 

bread varieties are specified in FNS 

guidance. 

(C) Desserts. Schools may count up to 

two grain-based desserts per week 

towards meeting the grains requirement 

as specified in FNS guidance. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4146 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 offerings given 

students’ selections and may need to 

modify recipes and other specifications 

to make sure that 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 (at least two different 

options) of fluid milk. All 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. 

Low fat or fat-free lactose-free and 

reduced-lactose 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. 

(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 must 

be allowed to decline two items at 

lunch, except that the students must 

select at least 1⁄2 cup of either the fruit 

or vegetable component. Senior high 

schools (as defined by the State 

educational agency) must participate in 

offer versus serve. Schools below the 

senior high level may participate in 

offer versus serve at the discretion of the 

school food authority. 

(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) ab ................................................................................................ 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. Schools lunches offered 

to each age/grade group must meet, on 

average over the school week, the levels 

of sodium specified in the following 

table within the established deadlines: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4147 

National school lunch program Sodium reduction: Timeline & amount 

Age/grade group 

Baseline: 

Average current sodium levels in meals 

as offered 1

(mg) 

Target 1: 

July 1, 2014 

(SY 2014–2015) 

(mg) 

Target 2: 

July 1, 2017 

(SY 2017–2018) 

(mg) 

Final Target: 

July 1, 2022 

(SY 2022–2023) 

(mg) 

K–5 ......................................................... 1,377 (elementary) ................................ ≤ 1,230 ≤ 935 ≤ 640 

6–8 ......................................................... 1,520 (middle) ....................................... ≤ 1,360 ≤ 1,035 ≤ 710 

9–12 ....................................................... 1,588 (high) ........................................... ≤ 1,420 ≤ 1,080 ≤ 740 

1SNDA–III. 

(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 

trainings, 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 

weighted 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 one week of 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 

specifications 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 requirements. 

(2) Trans fat. State agencies must 

review product labels or manufacturer 

specifications to 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 weighted 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 within the review period. 

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 in the nutrient analysis all foods 

offered as part of the reimbursable meals 

during one week within the review 

period. 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 conduct the nutrient 

analysis and calculate weighting as 

indicated by FNS guidance. 

(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 one-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 dietary specifications. 

(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, sodium and trans fat, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4148 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

(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’’ means 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 FNS 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. 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 served 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4149 

(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. 

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 breast milk 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 

Federal 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: 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR LUNCHES—TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH 1

Nutrients and energy allowances 

Group II preschool 

ages 3–4 

School week averages 

Energy allowances (calories) ............................................................................................................................................... 517 

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ....................................................................................................... (2) 

Saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ............................................................................................... (2) 

RDA for protein (g) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 

RDA for calcium (mg) .......................................................................................................................................................... 267 

RDA for iron (mg) ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.3 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ....................................................................................................................................................... 150 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4150 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR LUNCHES—TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH 1— 

Continued 

Nutrients and energy allowances 

Group II preschool 

ages 3–4 

School week averages 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 

1 Current regulations only specify minimum nutrient and calorie levels for lunches for children ages 3–4. 

2The 1995 Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘* * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, 

contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 

(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: 

TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH—MEAL PLAN FOR LUNCHES

Group I ages 1–2 preschool Group II ages 3–4 preschool 

Food components and food items Minimum quantities 

Fluid milk (as a beverage) ...................................................................... 6 fluid ounces ................................ 6 fluid ounces.1

Meat or Meat Alternates: 

Lean meat, poultry, or fish ............................................................... 1 ounce .......................................... 11⁄2 ounces. 

Alternate Protein Products 2 ............................................................. 1 ounce .......................................... 11⁄2 ounces. 

Cheese .................................................................................................... 1 ounce .......................................... 11⁄2 ounces. 

Large egg ................................................................................................ 1⁄2 ................................................... 3⁄4. 

Cooked dry beans and peas ................................................................... 1⁄4 cup ............................................ 3⁄8 cup. 

Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters ............................................. 2 tablespoons ................................ 3 tablespoons. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened ........................... 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup ........................ 6 ounces or 3⁄4 cup. 

The following may be used to meet no more than 50% of the requirement and must be used in combination with any of the above: 

Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, or seeds, as listed in program guidance, or an equivalent quantity of any combination of the above 

meat/meat alternate (1 ounce of nuts/seeds = 1 ounce of 

cooked lean meat, poultry or fish).

1⁄2 ounce = 50% ............................ 3⁄4 ounce = 50%. 

Vegetable or Fruit: 2 or more servings of vegetables, fruits or both ...... 1⁄2 cup ............................................ 1⁄2 cup. 

Grains/Breads (servings per week): Must be enriched or whole grain. 

A serving is a slice of bread or an equivalent serving of biscuits, 

rolls, etc., or 1⁄2 cup of cooked rice, macaroni, noodles, other pasta 

products or cereal grains.

5 servings per week 3—minimum 

of 1⁄2 serving per day.

8 servings per week 3—minimum 

of 1 serving per day. 

1Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), fluid milk for children Ages 3–4 must be fat-free (unflavored or flavored) or low-fat (unflavored only). 

2 Must meet the requirements in Appendix A of this part. 

3For the purposes of this table, a week equals five days. 

(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 FNS 

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/ 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4151 

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 FNS guidance. 

(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 vegetables 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 

fluid milk in a variety of fat contents, 

flavored or unflavored. Schools may 

also offer this age group lactose-free or 

reduced-lactose fluid milk. For students 

in age group 3–4, schools must offer fatfree milk (unflavored or flavored) and 

low-fat milk (unflavored only). Schools 

may also offer this age group lactose-free 

and reduced-lactose milk that is fat-free 

or low-fat. Students in age group 3–4 

must be offered a variety (at least two 

different options) of 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) through (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 part, 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 served 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4152 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

LUNCH PATTERN FOR INFANTS

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

4–6 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3 .... 4–8 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 

and 

0–3 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4; and 

0–3 tablespoons of fruits or vegetables or 

both 4.

6–8 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 

and 

2–4 tablespoons of infant cereal 1; and/or 

1–4 tablespoons of meat, fish, poultry, egg 

yolk, cooked dry beans or peas; or 1⁄2–2 ounces of cheese, or 

1–4 ounces (volume) of cottage cheese; or 

1–4 ounces (weight) of cheese food or 

cheese spread; and 

1–4 tablespoons of fruits or vegetables or 

both. 

1 Infant formula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified. 

2Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served from birth through 11 

months. 3For 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. 4A serving of this component is required only when the infant is developmentally ready to accept it. 

■ 4. 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) through (6) 

as paragraphs (h)(2) through (5), 

respectively. 

■ c. Amend paragraph (i)(4)(iv) by 

removing the words ‘‘the School 

Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220) and/ 

or’’. 

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) * * * 

(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 and 220.23 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 National School Lunch Program 

and/or School Breakfast Program 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, 2013 and ends on 

June 30, 2014. 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 and 

§ 220.23 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 and § 220.23, 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 and 220.23, 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 five 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 and 220.23, as applicable, 

of this chapter have been offered. 

(iv) Conduct a weighted 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 

and 220.23 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4153 

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 1 

violations. A State agency is required to 

take fiscal action for all violations 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) through (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 

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 grain-rich foods 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 210.19: 

■ a. Remove paragraph (a)(1) and 

redesignate paragraphs (a)(2) through (6) 

as paragraph (a)(1) through (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] 

■ 6. In § 210.21, amend paragraph (e) by 

removing the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

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

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

this chapter.’’ 

■ 7. 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 

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

■ 8. 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 Technical 

Assistance Branch, Child Nutrition Division, 

FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 

632, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 220—SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM 

■ 9. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 220 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 10. In § 220.2: 

■ a. Amend the definition of Breakfast 

by removing the phrase ‘‘nutritional 

requirements set out in § 220.8’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase ‘‘meal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4154 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements set out in §§ 220.8 and 

220.23’’, 

■ b. Amend the definition of Menu item 

by removing the citation ‘‘§ 220.8’’ and 

adding in its place the citation 

‘‘§ 220.23’’, 

■ c. Remove the definition of Milk; 

■ d. Amend the definition of Nutrient 

Standard Menu Planning/Assisted 

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning by 

removing the citations ‘‘§ 220.8(e)(5)’’ 

and ‘‘§ 220.8(f)’’ and adding in their 

place the citations ‘‘§ 220.23(e)(5)’’ and 

‘‘§ 220.23(f)’’, respectively; 

■ e. Revise the definition of School 

week; and 

■ f. Add definitions for Tofu and Whole 

grains. 

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 and 

§ 220.23. 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. 

* * * * * 

Tofu means a soybean-derived food, 

made by a process in which soybeans 

are soaked, ground, mixed with water, 

heated, filtered, coagulated, and formed 

into cakes. Basic ingredients are whole 

soybeans, one or more food-grade 

coagulants (typically a salt or an acid), 

and water. Tofu products must conform 

to FNS guidance to count toward the 

meats/meat alternates component. 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Revise § 220.8 to read as follows: 

§ 220.8 Meal requirements for breakfasts. 

(a) General requirements. This section 

contains the meal requirements 

applicable to school breakfasts for 

students in grades K to 12. With the 

exception of the milk component, the 

meal requirements must be 

implemented beginning July 1, 2013 or 

as otherwise specified. School food 

authorities wishing to adopt the 

provisions of this section prior to the 

required date of compliance may do so 

with the approval of the State agency. In 

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. 

(1) General nutrition requirements. 

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 

food-based 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 (o) of this section. 

(2) Unit pricing. Schools must price 

each meal as a unit. The price of a 

reimbursable lunch does not change if 

the student does not take a food item or 

requests smaller portions. 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 

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 

breakfasts. School breakfasts for 

children ages 5 and older must reflect 

food and nutrition requirements 

specified by the Secretary. Compliance 

with these requirements, once fully 

implemented as specified in paragraphs 

(c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (j) of this 

section, 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 as specified in paragraph (f) of 

this section; and 

(iii) Meal 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 as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section; 

(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: 

Breakfast meal pattern 

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Meal pattern Amount of food a per week 

(Minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) b c ................................................................................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) b c ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Dark green ................................................................................................................ 0 0 0

Red/Orange .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4155 

Breakfast meal pattern 

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Beans and peas (legumes) ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Starchy ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Other ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Grains (oz eq) d ................................................................................................................ 7–10 (1) 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 

Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) e ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Fluid milk f (cups) ............................................................................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

Min-max calories (kcal) g h ................................................................................................ 350–500 400–550 450–600 

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h .................................................................................. < 10 < 10 < 10 

Sodium (mg) h i ................................................................................................................. ≤ 430 ≤ 470 ≤ 500 

Trans fat h j ....................................................................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must 

indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving. 

a Food items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. b One quarter cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit 

or vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. c Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015) schools must offer 1 cup of fruit daily and 5 cups of fruit weekly. Vegetables may be substituted for 

fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or ‘‘Other 

vegetables’’ subgroups, as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii). d Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), at least half of grains offered must be whole-grain-rich and schools must meet the grain ranges. 

Schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. By July 1, 

2014 (SY 2014–15) all grains must be whole-grain-rich. e There is no meat/meat alternate requirement. 

f Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013) all fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored). g Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), the average daily calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum 

and no more than the maximum values). h 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. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed. i Final sodium targets must be met no later than July 1, 2022 (SY 2022–2023). The first intermediate targets must be met no later than July 1, 

2014 (SY 2014–2015) and the second intermediate targets must be met no later than July 1, 2017 (SY 2017–2018). 

j Trans fat restrictions must be implemented on July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–14). 

(1) Age/grade groups. Effective July 1, 

2013 (SY 2013–2014), 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. 

(i) Meats/meat alternates component. 

Schools are not required to offer meats/ 

meat alternates as part of the breakfast 

menu. Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 2013– 

2014), schools may substitute meats/ 

meat alternates for grains, after the daily 

grains requirement is met, to meet the 

weekly grains requirement. One ounce 

equivalent of meat/meat alternate is 

equivalent to one ounce equivalent of 

grains. 

(A) Enriched macaroni. Enriched 

macaroni with fortified protein as 

defined in Appendix A to Part 210 may 

be used to meet part of the meats/meat 

alternates requirement when used as 

specified in Appendix A to Part 210. An 

enriched macaroni product with 

fortified protein as defined in Appendix 

A to Part 210 may be used to meet part 

of the meats/meat alternates component 

or the grains component but may not 

meet 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 Part 220. 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. 

(D) Tofu and soy products. 

Commercial tofu and soy products may 

be used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

Noncommercial and/or nonstandardized tofu and products are not 

creditable. 

(E) Beans and peas (legumes). Cooked 

dry beans and peas (legumes) may be 

used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component. Beans and 

peas (legumes) are identified in this 

section and include foods such as black 

beans, garbanzo beans, lentils, kidney 

beans, mature lima beans, navy beans, 

pinto beans, and split peas. 

(F) Other meat alternates. Other meat 

alternates, such as cheese and eggs, may 

be used to meet all or part of the meats/ 

meat alternates component in 

accordance with FNS guidance. 

(ii) Fruits component. Effective July 1, 

2014 (SY 2014–2015), schools must 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4156 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

offer daily the fruit quantities specified 

in the breakfast meal pattern in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Fruits that 

are fresh; frozen without added sugar; 

canned in light syrup, water or fruit 

juice; or dried may be offered to meet 

the fruits component requirements. 

Vegetables may be offered in place of all 

or part of the required fruits at breakfast, 

but the first two cups per week of any 

such substitution must be from the dark 

green, red/orange, beans and peas 

(legumes) or other vegetable subgroups, 

as defined in this section. 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 fruit 

component. 

(iii) Vegetables component. Schools 

are not required to offer vegetables as 

part of the breakfast menu but may, 

effective July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015), 

offer vegetables to meet part or all of the 

fruit requirement. Fresh, frozen, or 

canned vegetables and dry beans and 

peas (legumes) may be offered to meet 

the fruit 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 and 

tomato paste and tomato puree are 

credited based on calculated volume of 

the whole food equivalency. 

Pasteurized, full-strength vegetable juice 

may be used to meet no more than onehalf of the vegetable component. Cooked 

dry beans or peas (legumes) may be 

counted as either a vegetable or as a 

meat alternate but not as both in the 

same meal. 

(iv) Grains component. (A) Enriched 

and whole grains. All grains must be 

made with enriched and whole grain 

meal or flour, in accordance with the 

most recent FNS guidance on grains. 

Whole grain-rich products must contain 

at least 50 percent whole grains and the 

remaining grains in the product must be 

enriched. Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 

2013–2014), schools may substitute 

meats/meat alternates for grains, after 

the daily grains requirement is met, to 

meet the weekly grains requirement. 

One ounce equivalent of meat/meat 

alternate is equivalent to one ounce 

equivalent of grains. 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. 

Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), 

the grains component is based on 

minimum daily servings plus total 

servings over a five-day school week. 

Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), 

half of the grains offered during the 

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

Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015), 

all grains must meet the whole grainrich criteria specified in FNS guidance. 

The whole grain-rich criteria provided 

in FNS guidance 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 breakfast 6 or 7 days per week 

must increase the weekly grains 

quantity by approximately 20 percent 

(1⁄5) for each additional day. When 

schools operate less than 5 days per 

week, they may decrease the weekly 

quantity by approximately 20 percent 

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

servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and 

other grain/bread varieties are specified 

in FNS guidance. 

(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. 

(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 (at least two 

different options) of fluid milk. Effective 

July 1, 2012 (SY 2012–2013), all 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. Low fat or fat-free 

lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid 

milk may also be offered. Schools must 

also comply with other applicable fluid 

milk requirements in § 210.10(d)(1) 

through (4) of this chapter. 

(e) Offer versus serve. School 

breakfast must offer daily at least the 

three food components required in the 

meal pattern in paragraph (c) of this 

section. To exercise the offer versus 

serve option at breakfast, a school food 

authority or school must offer a 

minimum of four food items daily as 

part of the required components. Under 

offer versus serve, students are allowed 

to decline one of the four food items, 

provided that students select at least 1⁄2

cup of the fruit component for a 

reimbursable meal beginning July 1, 

2014 (SY 2014–2015). If only three food 

items are offered at breakfast, school 

food authorities or schools may not 

exercise the offer versus serve option. 

(f) Dietary specifications. (1) Calories. 

Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), 

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—EFFECTIVE SY 2013–2014 

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. Effective July 1, 

2012 (SY 2012–2013), 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 within the specified deadlines: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4157 

SODIUM REDUCTION: TIMELINE & AMOUNT

Age/grade group 

Baseline: average current sodium levels 

as offered 1

(mg) 

Target 1: 

July 1, 2014 

SY 2014–2015 

(mg) 

Target 2: 

July 1, 2017 

SY 2017–2018 

(mg) 

Final Target: 

July 1, 2022 

SY 2022–2023 

(mg) 

School Breakfast Program 

K–5 ............................................................ 573 (elementary) ...................................... ≤ 540 ≤ 485 ≤ 430 

6–8 ............................................................ 629 (middle) ............................................. ≤ 600 ≤ 535 ≤ 470 

9–12 .......................................................... 686 (high) ................................................. ≤ 640 ≤ 570 ≤ 500 

1SNDA–III. 

(4) Trans fat. Effective July 1, 2013 

(SY 2013–2014), 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 

dietary specifications for calorie, 

saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat 

established in paragraph (f) of this 

section. Compliance assistance may be 

offered during training, onsite visits, 

and/or administrative reviews. 

(h) State agency responsibilities for 

monitoring dietary specifications. (1) 

Calories, saturated fat, and sodium. 

Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 2013–2014), 

as part of the administrative review 

authorized under § 210.18 of this 

chapter, State agencies must conduct a 

weighted 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 one week within the review 

period. The nutrient analysis must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

procedures established in § 210.10(i) of 

this chapter. If the results of the review 

indicate that the school breakfasts are 

not meeting the standards for calories, 

saturated fat, or 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 requirements. 

(2) Trans fat. Effective SY 2013–2014, 

State agencies conducting an 

administrative review must review 

product labels of manufacturer 

specifications to 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 weighted 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 within the review period. 

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. Effective SY 

2013–2014, compliance with the 

applicable 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 also apply to this Program. 

(l) Requirements for breakfast period. 

(1) Timing. Schools must offer 

breakfasts meeting the requirements of 

this section at or near the beginning of 

the school day. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(m) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable meals. The 

requirements in § 210.10(m) of this 

chapter also apply to this Program. 

(n) Nutrition disclosure. The 

requirements in § 210.10(n) of this 

chapter also apply to this Program. 

(o) 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 (o)(2) 

of this section); 

(ii) Provision of the breakfast energy 

allowances (calories) for children in the 

appropriate levels (see paragraph (o)(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 (o)(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 (o)(1) of this section and the 

appropriate calorie and nutrient levels 

in paragraph (o)(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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4158 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

[Traditional Food-Based Menu Planning Approach] 

Age 2 1 Ages 3–4 

Nutrients and energy allowances School week averages 

Energy allowances (calories) ........................................................................................................................... 325 388 

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ................................................................................... (2) (2) 

Saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ........................................................................... (2) (2) 

RDA for protein (g) .......................................................................................................................................... 4 5 

RDA for calcium (mg) ...................................................................................................................................... 200 200 

RDA for iron (mg) ............................................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ................................................................................................................................... 100 113 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .................................................................................................................................. 10 11 

1 Nutrient and calorie levels start at age 2 because the ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans’’ apply to ages 2 and older. 

2The 1995 ‘‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans’’ recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 

years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 

(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. 

(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: 

TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH MEAL PLAN FOR BREAKFASTS

Ages 1–2 Ages 3–4 

Food components and food items School week averages 

Fluid milk (as a beverage, on cereal, or both) ........................................ 4 fluid ounces ................................ 6 fluid ounces1. 

Juice/Fruit/Vegetable: Fruit and/or vegetable; or full-strength fruit or 

vegetable juice.

1⁄4 cup ............................................ 1⁄2 cup. 

Select one serving from each of the following components, two from one component, or an equivalent combination: 

Grains/Breads: 

Whole grain or enriched bread ............................................................... 1⁄2 slice ........................................... 1⁄2 slice. 

Whole grain or enriched bread product, such as biscuit, roll, muffin.

1⁄2 serving ...................................... 1⁄2 serving. 

Whole grain, enriched or fortified cereal .......................................... 1⁄4 cup or 1⁄3 ounce ........................ 1⁄3 cup or 1⁄2 ounce. 

Meat or Meat Alternates: 

Meat/poultry or fish .......................................................................... 1⁄2 ounce ........................................ 1⁄2 ounce. 

Alternate protein products 2 .............................................................. 1⁄2 ounce ........................................ 1⁄2 ounce 

Cheese ............................................................................................. 1⁄2 ounce ........................................ 1⁄2 ounce. 

Large egg ......................................................................................... 1⁄2 ................................................... 1⁄2

Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters ...................................... 1 tablespoon .................................. 1 tablespoon. 

Cooked dry beans and peas ............................................................ 2 tablespoons ................................ 2 tablespoons. 

Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in program guidance) 3 ...................... 1⁄2 ounce ........................................ 1⁄2 ounce. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened .................... 2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup ........................ 2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup. 

1Fluild milk for children ages 3–4 must be fat-free (unflavored or flavored) or low-fat (unflavored only) 

2 Must meet the requirements in appendix A of this part. 

3 No more than 1 ounce of nuts and/or seeds may be served in any one breakfast. 

(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 fluid 

milk in a variety of fat contents, flavored 

or unflavored. Schools may also offer 

this age group lactose-free or reducedlactose fluid milk. For students in age 

group 3–4, schools must offer fat-free 

milk (unflavored or flavored) and lowfat milk (unflavored only). Schools may 

also offer this age group lactose-free and 

reduced-lactose milk that is fat-free or 

low-fat. Students in age group 3–4 must 

be offered a variety (at least two 

different options) of 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4159 

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 (o)(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 

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 

(o)(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 (o)(11)(iv) of this section, are: 

BREAKFAST PATTERN FOR INFANTS

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

4–6 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3 4–8 fluid ounces of formula1 or breastmilk;2 3

and 

0–3 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4

6–8 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk;2 3

and 

2–4 tablespoons of infant cereal;1 and 

1–4 tablespoons of fruit or vegetable or both. 

1 Infant formula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified. 

2Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served from birth through 11 

months. 3For 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. 4A serving of this component is required only when the infant is developmentally ready to accept it. 

■ 12. Paragraph 220.13(f) is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Amend paragraph (f)(2) by 

removing the words ‘‘§ 210.30(d)’’ 

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) * * * 

(3) For the purposes of compliance 

with the meal requirements in § 220.8 

and § 220.23, the State agency must 

follow the provisions specified in 

§ 210.18(g)(2) of this chapter, as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Add § 220.23 to read as follows: 

§ 220.23 Nutrition standards and menu 

planning approaches for breakfasts. 

(a) What are the nutrition standards 

for breakfasts for children age 2 and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

over? This section contains the 

requirements applicable to school 

breakfasts for children age 2 and over in 

school years 2012–2013 through 2013– 

14. All of the requirements of this 

section will be superseded by the 

requirements in § 220.8 beginning July 

1, 2013 (school year 2013–14), with the 

exceptions noted in paragraph (n) of this 

section. School food authorities must 

ensure that participating schools 

provide nutritious and well-balanced 

breakfasts. For children age 2 and over, 

breakfasts, 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: 

(1) Provision of one-fourth of the 

Recommended Dietary Allowances 

(RDA) for protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamin A and vitamin C in the 

appropriate levels (see paragraphs (b), 

(c), (e)(1), or (h) of this section); 

(2) Provision of the breakfast energy 

allowances (calories) for children in the 

appropriate levels (see paragraphs (b), 

(c), (e)(1), or (h) of this section); 

(3) These applicable 

recommendations of the 1995 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans: 

(i) Eat a variety of foods; 

(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total 

calories; 

(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 

percent of total calories; 

(iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol; 

(v) Choose a diet with plenty of grain 

products, vegetables, and fruits; and 

(vi) Choose a diet moderate in salt and 

sodium. 

(4) These measures of compliance 

with the applicable recommendations of 

the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans: 

(i) Limit the percent of calories from 

total fat to 30 percent of the actual 

number of calories offered; 

(ii) Limit the percent of calories from 

saturated fat to less than 10 percent of 

the actual number of calories offered; 

(iii) Reduce sodium and cholesterol 

levels; and 

(iv) Increase the level of dietary fiber. 

(5) School food authorities have 

several ways to plan menus. The 

minimum levels of nutrients and 

calories that breakfasts must offer 

depends on the menu planning 

approach used and the age/grades 

served. The menu planning approaches 

are: 

(i) Nutrient standard menu planning 

(see paragraphs (b) and (e) of this 

section); 

(ii) Assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning (see paragraphs (b) and (f) of 

this section); 

(iii) Traditional food-based menu 

planning (see paragraphs (c) and (g)(1) 

of this section); 

(iv) Enhanced food-based menu 

planning (see paragraphs (c) and (g)(2) 

of this section); or 

(v) Alternate menu planning as 

provided for in paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(6) 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, food items or menu 

items every day. In addition, these 

records must show how the breakfasts 

contribute to the nutrition standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section and the 

appropriate calorie and nutrient levels 

(see paragraphs (c), (d), or (h) of this 

section, depending on the menu 

planning approach used) over the 

school week. If applicable, schools or 

school food authorities must maintain 

nutritional analysis records to 

demonstrate that breakfasts, when 

averaged over each school week, meet: 

(i) The nutrition standards provided 

in paragraph (a) of this section; and 

(ii) The nutrient and calorie levels for 

children for each age or grade group in 

accordance with paragraphs (b) and 

(e)(1) of this section or developed under 

paragraph (h) of this section. 

(b) What are the levels for nutrients 

and calories for breakfasts planned 

under the nutrient standard or assisted 

nutrient standard menu planning 

approaches? (1) The required levels are: 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING APPROACHES

(SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES) 

Nutrients and energy allowances 

Minimum requirements Optional 

Preschool Grades K–12 Grades 7–12 

Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 388 554 618 

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1, 2) (2) 

Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1, 3) (3) 

RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 5 10 12 

RDA for calcium (mg) .................................................................................................................. 200 257 300 

RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 3 3.4 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ............................................................................................................... 113 197 225 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .............................................................................................................. 11 13 14 

1The Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘ * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 2 Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week. 

3 Less than 10 percent over a school week. 

(2) Optional levels are: 

OPTIONAL MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING

APPROACHES (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES) 

Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 3–6 Ages 7–10 Ages 11–13 Ages 14 and 

above 

Calories (kcal) .................................................................................................. 419 500 588 625 

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ........................................................................... (1, 2) (2) (2) (2) 

Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ................................................................... (1, 3) (3) (3) (3) 

RDA for protein (g) .......................................................................................... 5.5 7 11.25 12.5 

RDA for calcium (mg) ...................................................................................... 200 200 300 300 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4161 

OPTIONAL MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING

APPROACHES (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)—Continued 

Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 3–6 Ages 7–10 Ages 11–13 Ages 14 and 

above 

RDA for iron (mg) ............................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.4 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ................................................................................... 119 175 225 225 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) ................................................................................... 11.00 11.25 12.5 14.4 

1The Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘ * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 2 Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week. 

3 Less than 10 percent over a school week. 

(3) Schools may also develop a set of 

nutrient and calorie levels for a school 

week. These levels are customized for 

the age groups of the children in the 

particular school. 

(c) What are the nutrient and calorie 

levels for breakfasts planned under the 

food-based menu planning 

approaches?—(1) Traditional approach. 

For the traditional food-based menu 

planning approach, the required levels 

are: 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING

APPROACH (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES) 

Nutrients and energy allowances Age 2 Ages 3, 4, 5 Grades K–12 

Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 325 388 554 

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1, 2) 

Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1) (1, 3) 

RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 4 5 10 

RDA for calcium (mg) .................................................................................................................. 200 200 257 

RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 3 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ............................................................................................................... 100 113 197 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .............................................................................................................. 10 11 13 

1The Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘ * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 2 Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week. 

3 Less than 10 percent over a school week. 

(2) Enhanced approach. For the 

enhanced food-based menu planning 

approach, the required levels are: 

MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS ENHANCED FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING

APPROACH (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES) 

Nutrients and energy allowances 

Required for Option for 

Preschool Grades K–12 Grades 7–12 

Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 388 554 618 

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1, 2) (2) 

Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1, 3) (3) 

RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 5 10 12 

RDA for calcium (mg) .................................................................................................................. 200 257 300 

RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 3 3.4 

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ............................................................................................................... 113 197 225 

RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .............................................................................................................. 11 13 14 

1The Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ‘‘ * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.’’ 2 Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week. 

3 Less than 10 percent over a school week. 

(d) Exceptions and variations allowed 

in reimbursable breakfasts. (1) 

Exceptions for disability reasons. 

Schools must make substitutions in 

breakfasts for students who are 

considered to have a disability under 7 

CFR part 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 substitutions 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 

breakfast because of medical or other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

statement must be signed by a 

recognized medical authority. 

(i) 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) meet the nutritional 

standards established in paragraph (i)(3) 

of this section. Expenses incurred in 

providing substitutions for fluid milk 

that exceed program reimbursements 

must be paid by the school food 

authority. 

(ii) Requisites for 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 breakfasts. Variations on an 

experimental or continuing basis in the 

food components for the food-based 

menu planning approaches in paragraph 

(g) of this section may be allowed by 

FNS. Any variations must be 

nutritionally sound 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 breakfasts for 

reimbursement that do not meet the 

requirements in this section. 

(e) What are the requirements for the 

nutrient standard menu planning 

approach? (1) Nutrient levels—(i) 

Adjusting nutrient levels for young 

children. Schools with children who are 

age 2 must at least meet the nutrition 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section and the preschool nutrient and 

calorie levels in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section over a school week. Schools may 

also use the preschool nutrient and 

calorie levels in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section or may calculate nutrient and 

calorie levels for two year olds. FNS has 

a method for calculating these levels in 

menu planning guidance materials. 

(ii) Minimum levels for nutrients. 

Breakfasts must at least offer the 

nutrient and calorie levels for the 

required grade groups in the table in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Schools 

may also offer breakfasts meeting the 

nutrient and calorie levels for the age 

groups in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. If only one grade or age group 

is outside the established levels, schools 

may follow the levels for the majority of 

the children. Schools may also 

customize the nutrient and calorie 

levels for the children they serve. FNS 

has a method for calculating these levels 

in guidance materials for menu 

planning. 

(2) Reimbursable breakfasts—(i) 

Contents of a reimbursable breakfast. A 

reimbursable breakfast must include at 

least three menu items. All menu items 

or foods offered in a reimbursable 

breakfast contribute to the nutrition 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section and to the levels of nutrients 

and calories that must be met in 

paragraphs (c) or (e)(1) of this section. 

Unless offered as part of a menu item in 

a reimbursable breakfast, foods of 

minimal nutritional value (see appendix 

B to part 220) are not included in the 

nutrient analysis. Reimbursable 

breakfasts planned under the nutrient 

standard menu planning approach must 

meet the nutrition standards in 

paragraph (a) of this section and the 

appropriate nutrient and calorie levels 

in paragraph (b) or (e)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Offer versus serve. Schools must 

offer at least three menu items. At their 

option, school food authorities may 

allow students to select only two menu 

items and to decline a maximum of one 

menu item. The price of a reimbursable 

breakfast does not change if the student 

does not take a menu item or requests 

smaller portions. 

(3) Doing the analysis. Schools using 

nutrient standard menu planning must 

conduct the analysis on all menu items 

and foods offered in a reimbursable 

breakfast. The analysis is conducted 

over a school week within the review 

period. Unless offered as part of a menu 

item in a reimbursable breakfast, foods 

of minimal nutritional value (see 

appendix B to part 220) are not included 

in the nutrient analysis. 

(4) Software elements—(i) The Child 

Nutrition Database. The nutrient 

analysis is based on the 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 do all functions after the 

basic data is entered. The required 

functions include weighted averages 

and the optional combined analysis of 

the lunch and breakfast programs. 

(5) Nutrient analysis procedures—(i) 

Weighted averages. Schools must 

include all menu items and foods 

offered in reimbursable breakfasts in the 

nutrient analysis. Menu items and foods 

are included based on the portion sizes 

and projected serving amounts. They are 

also weighted based on their 

proportionate contribution to the 

breakfasts offered. This means that 

menu items or foods more frequently 

offered are weighted more heavily than 

those not offered as frequently. Schools 

calculate weighting as indicated by FNS 

guidance and by the guidance provided 

by the software. 

(ii) Analyzed nutrients. The analysis 

includes all menu items and foods 

offered over a school week. The analysis 

must determine the levels of: Calories, 

protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, 

calcium, total fat, saturated fat, sodium, 

cholesterol and dietary fiber. 

(6) Comparing the results of the 

nutrient analysis. Once the procedures 

in paragraph (i)(5) of this section are 

completed, schools must compare the 

results of the analysis to the appropriate 

nutrient and calorie levels, by age/grade 

groups, in paragraph (b) of this section 

or those developed under paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section. This comparison 

determines the school week’s average. 

Schools must also make comparisons to 

the nutrition standards in paragraph (a) 

of this section to determine how well 

they are meeting the nutrition standards 

over a school week. 

(7) Adjustments to the menus. Once 

schools know the results of the nutrient 

analysis based on the procedures in 

paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) of this section, 

they must adjust future menu cycles to 

reflect production and how often the 

menu items and foods are offered. 

Schools may need to reanalyze menus 

when the students’ selections and, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4163 

consequently, production levels change. 

Schools may need to change the menu 

items and foods offered given the 

students’ selections and may need to 

modify the recipes and other 

specifications to make sure that the 

nutrition standards in paragraph (a) and 

either paragraph (b) or (e)(1) of this 

section are met. 

(8) Standardized recipes. If a school 

follows the nutrient standard menu 

planning approach, it 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. Any standardized recipes 

developed by USDA/FNS are in the 

Child Nutrition Database. If a school has 

its own recipes, they must be 

standardized and analyzed to determine 

the levels of calories, nutrients, and 

dietary components listed in paragraph 

(e)(5)(ii) of this section. Schools must 

add any local recipes to their local 

database as outlined in FNS guidance. 

(9) Processed foods. The Child 

Nutrition Database includes a number of 

processed foods. Schools may use 

purchased processed foods and menu 

items that are not in the Child Nutrition 

Database. Schools or the State agency 

must add any locally purchased 

processed foods and menu items to their 

local database as outlined in FNS 

guidance. Schools or State agencies 

must obtain the levels of calories, 

nutrients, and dietary components listed 

in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. 

(10) Menu substitutions. Schools may 

need to substitute foods or menu items 

in a menu that was already analyzed. If 

the substitution(s) occurs more than two 

weeks before the planned menu is 

served, the school must reanalyze the 

revised menu. If the substitution(s) 

occurs two weeks or less before the 

planned menu is served, the school does 

not need to do a reanalysis. However, 

schools should always try to substitute 

similar foods. 

(11) Meeting the nutrition standards. 

The school’s analysis shows whether 

their menus are meeting the nutrition 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section and the appropriate levels of 

nutrients and calories in paragraph (b) 

of this section or customized levels 

developed under paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. If the analysis shows that the 

menu(s) are not meeting these 

standards, the school needs to take 

action to make sure that the breakfasts 

meet the nutrition standards and the 

calorie, nutrient, and dietary component 

levels. Actions may include technical 

assistance and training and may be 

taken by the State agency, the school 

food authority or by the school as 

needed. 

(12) Other Child Nutrition Programs 

and nutrient standard analysis menu 

planning. School food authorities that 

operate the Summer Food Service 

Program (part 225 of this chapter) and/ 

or the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program (part 226 of this chapter) may, 

with State agency approval, prepare 

breakfasts for these programs using the 

nutrient standard menu planning 

approach for children age two and over. 

FNS has program guidance on the levels 

of nutrient and calories for adult 

breakfasts offered under the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program. 

(f) What are the requirements for the 

assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning approach?—(1) Definition of 

assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning. Some school food authorities 

may not be able to do all of the 

procedures necessary for nutrient 

standard menu planning. The assisted 

nutrient standard menu planning 

approach provides schools with menu 

cycles developed and analyzed by other 

sources. These sources include the State 

agency, other schools, consultants, or 

food service management companies. 

(2) Elements of assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning. School food 

authorities using menu cycles 

developed under assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning must follow 

the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (10) of this section. The menu 

cycles must also incorporate local food 

preferences and accommodate local 

food service operations. The menu 

cycles must meet the nutrition 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section and meet the applicable nutrient 

and calorie levels for nutrient standard 

menu planning in paragraphs (b) or 

(e)(1) of this section. The supplier of the 

assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning approach must also develop 

and provide recipes, food product 

specifications, and preparation 

techniques. All of these components 

support the nutrient analysis results of 

the menu cycles used by the receiving 

school food authorities. 

(3) State agency approval. Prior to its 

use, the State agency must approve the 

initial menu cycle, recipes and other 

specifications of the assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning approach. The 

State agency needs to make sure all the 

steps required for nutrient analysis were 

followed. School food authorities may 

also ask the State agency for assistance 

with implementation of their assisted 

nutrient standard menu planning 

approach. 

(4) Required adjustments. After the 

initial service of the menu cycle 

developed under the assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning approach, the 

nutrient analysis must be reassessed and 

appropriate adjustments made as 

discussed in paragraph (e)(7) of this 

section. 

(5) Final responsibility for meeting the 

nutrition standards. The school food 

authority using the assisted nutrient 

standard menu planning approach 

retains final responsibility for meeting 

the nutrition standards in paragraph (a) 

of this section and the applicable calorie 

and nutrient levels in paragraphs (b) or 

(e)(1) of this section. 

(6) Adjustments to the menus. If the 

nutrient analysis shows that the 

breakfasts offered are not meeting the 

nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of 

this section and the applicable calorie 

and nutrient levels in paragraphs (b) or 

(e)(1) of this section, the State agency, 

school food authority or school must 

take action to make sure the breakfasts 

offered meet these requirements. 

Actions needed include technical 

assistance and training. 

(7) Other Child Nutrition Programs 

and assisted nutrient analysis menu 

planning. School food authorities that 

operate the Summer Food Service 

Program (part 225 of this chapter) and/ 

or the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program (part 226 of this chapter) may, 

with State agency approval, prepare 

breakfasts for these programs using the 

assisted nutrient standard menu 

planning approach for children age two 

and over. FNS has guidance on the 

levels of nutrients and calories for adult 

breakfasts offered under the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program. 

(g) What are the requirements for the 

food-based menu planning 

approaches?—(1) Food items. There are 

two menu planning approaches based 

on meal patterns, not nutrient analysis. 

These approaches are the traditional 

food-based menu planning approach 

and the enhanced food-based menu 

planning approach. Schools using one 

of these approaches must offer these 

food items in at least the portions 

required for various age/grade groups: 

(i) A serving of fluid milk as a 

beverage or on cereal or used partly for 

both; 

(ii) A serving of fruit or vegetable or 

both, or full-strength fruit or vegetable 

juice; and 

(iii) Two servings from one of the 

following components or one serving 

from each component: 

(A) Grains/breads; and/or 

(B) Meat/meat alternate. 

(2) Quantities for the traditional foodbased menu planning approach. At a 

minimum, schools must offer the food 

items in the quantities specified for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate age/grade group in the 

following table: 

TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH—MEAL PATTERN FOR BREAKFASTS

Food components and food items 1–2 Ages 3, 4 and 5 Grades K–12 

MILK (fluid) (as a beverage, on cereal, or both) ................................................................ 4 fluid ounces ... 6 fluid ounces ... 8 fluid ounces. 

JUICE/FRUIT/VEGETABLE: Fruit and/or vegetable; or full-strength fruit juice or vegetable juice.

1⁄4 cup ............... 1⁄2 cup ............... 1⁄2 cup. 

SELECT ONE SERVING FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS, TWO 

FROM ONE COMPONENT, OR AN EQUIVALENT COMBINATION: 

GRAINS/BREADS: 

Whole-grain or enriched bread .................................................................................... 1⁄2 slice ............. 1⁄2 slice ............. 1 slice. 

Whole-grain or enriched biscuit, roll, muffin, etc ......................................................... 1⁄2 serving ......... 1⁄2 serving ......... 1 serving. 

Whole-grain, enriched or fortified cereal ..................................................................... 1⁄4 cup or 1⁄3

ounce.

1⁄3 cup or1⁄2

ounce.

3⁄4 cup or 1 

ounce. 

MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATIVES: 

Meat/poultry or fish ...................................................................................................... 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1⁄2 ...................... 1 ounce. 

Alternate protein products1 .......................................................................................... 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1 ounce. 

Cheese ........................................................................................................................ 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1 ounce. 

Large egg .................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 ...................... 1⁄2 ...................... 1⁄2. 

Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters .................................................................. 1 tablespoon ..... 1 tablespoon ..... 2 tablespoons. 

Cooked dry beans and peas ....................................................................................... 2 tablespoons ... 2 tablespoons ... 4 tablespoons. 

Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in program guidance) 2 .................................................. 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1⁄2 ounce ........... 1 ounce. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened ................................................ 2 ounces or 1⁄4

cup.

2 ounces or 1⁄4

cup.

4 ounces or 1⁄2

cup. 

1 Must meet the requirements in appendix A of this part. 

2 No more than 1 ounce of nuts and/or seeds may be served in any one breakfast. 

(3) Quantities for the enhanced 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: 

ENHANCED FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH-MEAL PATTERN FOR BREAKFASTS

Food components and food items 

Required for Option for 

Ages 1–2 Preschool Grades K–12 Grades 7–12 

MILK (fluid) (as a beverage, on cereal, or 

both).

4 fluid ounces ........... 6 fluid ounces ........... 8 fluid ounces ............ 8 fluid ounces. 

JUICE/FRUIT/VEGETABLE: Fruit and/or 

vegetable; or full-strength fruit juice or 

vegetable juice.

1⁄4 cup ....................... 1⁄2 cup ....................... 1⁄2 cup ....................... 1⁄2 cup. 

SELECT ONE SERVING FROM EACH OF 

THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS, 

TWO FROM ONE COMPONENT, OR 

AN EQUIVALENT COMBINATION: 

GRAINS/BREADS: 

Whole-grain or enriched bread ............. 1⁄2 slice ..................... 1⁄2 slice ..................... 1 slice ........................ 1 slice. 

Whole-grain or enriched biscuit, roll, 

muffin, etc..

1⁄2 serving ................. 1⁄2 serving ................. 1 serving ................... 1 serving. 

Whole-grain, enriched or fortified cereal.

1⁄4 cup or 1/3 ounce 1⁄3 cup or 1⁄2 ounce ... 3⁄4 cup or 1 ounce ..... 3⁄4 cup or 1 ounce plus an 

additional serving of 

one of the Grains/ 

Breads above. 

MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATIVES: 

Meat/poultry or fish ............................... 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce. 

Alternate protein products 1 .................. 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce. 

Cheese .................................................. 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce. 

Large egg .............................................. 1⁄2 .............................. 1⁄2 .............................. 1⁄2 .............................. 1⁄2. 

Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters.1 tablespoon ............. 1 tablespoon ............. 2 tablespoons ............ 2 tablespoons. 

Cooked dry beans and peas ................ 2 tablespoons ........... 2 tablespoons ........... 4 tablespoons ............ 4 tablespoons. 

Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in program guidance) 2.

1⁄2 ounce ................... 1⁄2 ounce ................... 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened 

or sweetened.

2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup .. 2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup .. 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup ... 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup. 

1 Must meet the requirements in appendix A of this part. 

2 No more than 1 ounce of nuts and/or seeds may be served in any one breakfast. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4165 

(4) Offer versus serve. Each school 

must offer all four required food items 

listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

At the option of the school food 

authority, each school may allow 

students to refuse one food item from 

any component. The refused food item 

may be any of the four items offered to 

the student. A student’s decision to 

accept all four food items or to decline 

one of the four food items must not 

affect the charge for a reimbursable 

breakfast. 

(5) 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. 

(h) What are the requirements for 

alternate menu planning approaches?— 

(1) Definition. Alternate menu planning 

approaches are those adopted or 

developed by school food authorities or 

State agencies that differ from the 

standard approaches established in 

paragraphs (e) through (g) of this 

section. 

(2) Use and approval of major 

changes or new alternate approaches. 

Within the guidelines established for 

developing alternate menu planning 

approaches, school food authorities or 

State agencies may modify one of the 

established menu planning approaches 

in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this 

section or may develop their own menu 

planning approach. The alternate menu 

planning approach must be available in 

writing for review and monitoring 

purposes. No formal plan is required; 

guidance material, a handbook or 

protocol is sufficient. As appropriate, 

the material must address how the 

guidelines in paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section are met. A State agency that 

develops an alternate approach that is 

exempt from FNS approval under 

paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section must 

notify FNS in writing when 

implementing the alternate approach. 

(i) Approval of local level plans. Any 

school food authority-developed menu 

planning approach must have prior 

State agency review and approval. 

(ii) Approval of State agency plans. 

Unless exempt under paragraph 

(h)(2)(iii) of this section, any State 

agency-developed menu planning 

approach must have prior FNS 

approval. 

(iii) State agency plans not subject to 

approval. A State agency-developed 

menu planning approach does not need 

FNS approval if: 

(A) Five or more school food 

authorities in the State use it; and 

(B) The State agency maintains ongoing oversight of the operation and 

evaluation of the approach and makes 

any needed adjustments to its policies 

and procedures to ensure that the 

appropriate guidelines in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section are met. 

(3) Elements for major changes or new 

approaches. Any alternate menu 

planning approach must: 

(i) Offer fluid milk, as provided in 

paragraph (i) of this section; 

(ii) Include the procedures for offer 

versus serve if the school food authority 

chooses to implement the offer versus 

serve option. Alternate approaches 

should follow the offer versus serve 

procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and 

(g)(4) of this section, as appropriate. If 

these requirements are not followed, the 

approach must indicate: 

(A) The affected age/grade groups; 

(B) The number and type of items 

(and, if applicable, the quantities for the 

items) that constitute a reimbursable 

breakfast under offer versus serve; 

(C) How such procedures will reduce 

plate waste; and 

(D) How a reasonable level of calories 

and nutrients for the breakfast as taken 

is provided. 

(iii) Meet the Recommended Dietary 

Allowances and breakfast energy 

allowances (nutrient levels) and 

indicate the age/grade groups served 

and how the nutrient levels are met for 

those age/grade groups; 

(iv) Follow the requirements for 

competitive foods in the definition of 

Foods of minimal nutritional value in 

§ 220.2, in § 220.12, and in appendix B 

of this part; 

(v) Follow the requirements for 

counting food items and products 

towards meeting the meal patterns. 

These requirements are found in 

paragraphs (g) and (i) of this section, in 

appendices A through C to this part, and 

in instructions and guidance issued by 

FNS. This only applies if the alternate 

approach is a food-based menu planning 

approach. 

(vi) Identify a reimbursable breakfast 

at the point of service. 

(A) To the extent possible, the 

procedures provided in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) of this section for nutrient 

standard or assisted nutrient standard 

menu planning approaches or for foodbased menu planning approaches 

provided in paragraph (g) of this section 

must be followed. Any instructions or 

guidance issued by FNS that further 

defines the elements of a reimbursable 

breakfast must be followed when using 

the existing regulatory provisions. 

(B) Any alternate approach that 

deviates from the provisions in 

paragraph (e)(2)(i) or paragraph (g) of 

this section must indicate what 

constitutes a reimbursable breakfast, 

including the number and type of items 

(and, if applicable, the quantities for the 

items) which comprise the breakfast, 

and how a reimbursable breakfast is to 

be identified at the point of service. 

(vii) Explain how the alternate menu 

planning approach can be monitored 

under the applicable provisions of 

§ 210.18 of this chapter, including a 

description of the records that will be 

maintained to document compliance 

with the program’s administrative and 

nutritional requirements. However, if 

the procedures under § 210.18 of this 

chapter cannot be used to monitor the 

alternate approach, a description of 

review procedures which will enable 

the State agency to assess compliance 

with the nutrition standards in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section must be included; and 

(viii) Follow the requirements for 

weighted analysis and for approved 

software for nutrient standard menu 

planning as required by paragraphs 

(e)(4) and (5) of this section unless a 

State agency-developed approach meets 

the criteria in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of 

this section. 

(i) What are the requirements for 

offering milk?—(1) Serving milk. 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 (at least 

two different options) of fluid milk 

daily. All milk must be fat-free or lowfat. 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. Low fat or fatfree lactose-free and reduced-lactose 

fluid milk may also be offered. Schools 

must also comply with other applicable 

fluid milk requirements in 

§ 210.10(d)(1) through (4) of this 

chapter. 

(2) Inadequate milk supply. If a school 

cannot get a supply of 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 breakfasts during the emergency 

period with an alternate form of milk or 

without milk. 

(ii) If a school is unable to obtain a 

supply of any type of fluid milk on a 

continuing basis, the State agency may 

allow schools to substitute canned or 

dry milk in the required quantities in 

the preparation of breakfasts. In Alaska, 

Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands, if a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
4166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

sufficient supply of fluid milk cannot be 

obtained, ‘‘milk’’ includes reconstituted 

or recombined milk, or otherwise as 

allowed by FNS through a written 

exception. 

(3) 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. 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 this paragraph 

(i)(3). 

Nutrient Per cup 

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. 

(j) What are the requirements for the 

infant breakfast pattern? (1) Feeding 

breakfasts to infants. Breakfasts served 

to infants ages birth through 11 months 

must meet the requirements described 

in paragraph (j)(4) 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 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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. 

(4) 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. 

(i) Birth through 3 months. 4 to 6 fluid 

ounces of breastmilk or iron-fortified 

infant formula—only breastmilk or ironfortified formula is required to meet the 

infant’s nutritional needs. 

(ii) Four 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. 

(A) Four to 8 fluid ounces of 

breastmilk or iron-fortified infant 

formula; and 

(B) 0 to 3 tablespoons of iron-fortified 

dry infant cereal. 

(iii) Eight through 11 months. 

Breastmilk or iron-fortified formula and 

solid foods of an appropriate texture 

and consistency are required. 

(A) Six to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk 

or iron-fortified infant formula; and 

(B) Two to 4 tablespoons of ironfortified dry infant cereal; and 

(C) One to 4 tablespoons of fruit or 

vegetable. 

(5) Infant meal pattern table. The 

minimum amounts of food components 

to serve to infants, as described in 

paragraph (j)(4) of this section, are: 

BREAKFAST PATTERN FOR INFANTS

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

4–6 fluid ounces of formula1 or breastmilk 2 3 4–8 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 

and 

6–8 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 

and 

0–3 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4 2–4 tablespoons of infant cereal 1; and 

1–4 tablespoons of fruit or vegetable or both 

1 Infant formula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified. 

2Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served in place of formula from 

birth through 11 months. 3For 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. 4A serving of this component is required only when the infant is developmentally ready to accept it. 

(k) What about serving additional 

foods? Schools may offer additional 

foods with breakfasts to children over 

one year of age. 

(l) Must schools offer choices at 

breakfast? FNS encourages schools to 

offer children a selection of foods and 

menu items at breakfast. Choices 

provide variety and encourage 

consumption. Schools may offer choices 

of reimbursable breakfasts or foods 

within a reimbursable breakfast. When a 

school offers a selection of more than 

one type of breakfast or when it offers 

a variety of food components, menu 

items or foods and milk for choice as a 

reimbursable breakfast, the school must 

offer all children the same selection(s) 

regardless of whether the child is 

eligible for free or reduced price 

breakfasts or must pay the designated 

full price. The school may establish 

different unit prices for each type of 

breakfast offered provided that the 

benefits made available to children 

eligible for free or reduced price 

breakfasts are not affected. 

(m) What must schools do about 

nutrition disclosure? To the extent that 

school food authorities identify foods in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4167 

a menu, or on the serving line or 

through other available means of 

communicating 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 

nutrition standards (see paragraph (a) of 

this section) for school breakfasts. 

(n) Implementation timeframes. All 

the requirements in this section will be 

superseded by the requirements in 

§ 220.8 beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 

2013–2014) with the following 

exceptions: 

(1) Fruits and vegetables component. 

The fruits and vegetables requirements 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) will be 

superseded July 1, 2014; and 

(2) Sodium specification. The sodium 

requirements in (a)(3)(vi) will be 

superseded July 1, 2014. 

Appendix A to Part 220 [Amended] 

■ 14. 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’’. 

Kevin Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1010 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2