National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Objectives for School Meals; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the regulations outlining the

nutrition standards for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast

Programs. It is part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for promoting

the health of children. Specifically, this proposal would update the

current nutrition standards to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans, which reflect medical and scientific consensus on proper

nutrition as a vital element in disease prevention and long-term health

promotion. This proposal would also adopt meal planning based on

analysis of key nutrients (Nutrient Standard Menu Planning) in lieu of

the current meal pattern. These changes would be implemented no later

than July 1, 1998. The Department will be providing State agencies and

school food authorities with technical assistance to enable them to

meet this implementation date.

In developing this proposed rule, the Department is responding to

an array of medical and scientific evidence linking improper diet with

increased incidence of heart disease, strokes and certain cancers.

These proposals acknowledge the positive role school programs must play

in establishing childhood eating patterns that influence lifelong

habits. The Department also considered extensive oral testimony

presented at four public hearings and meetings as well as written

comments submitted in response to a notice published in the Federal

Register on September 13, 1993.

In recognition of the importance of reinventing and streamlining

government programs, this proposal would also remove various paperwork

burdens associated with the school meal programs and would modify the

review requirements for the National School Lunch Program to ensure

adequate oversight of the proposed updated nutrition standards. The

overriding purpose behind this proposed rule is to serve more

nutritious and healthful meals to school children while maintaining

access to the meal programs for needy children, and to enhance the

flexibility of local schools to administer the programs.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on

or before September 8, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development

Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA,

3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Eadie at the above address

or by telephone at 703-305-2620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order

12866 and has been designated significant.

Included at the end of this proposal is the Regulatory Cost/Benefit

Assessment. The Assessment provides the background on the economic,

market and benefit impacts of this proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through

612). The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has

certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. In the interest of furthering

efforts to reinvent government, this rule proposes a substantial

reduction in current State agency administrative burdens and a

technical adjustment in the recordkeeping burdens. Moreover, the

Department of Agriculture (the Department or USDA) does not anticipate

any adverse fiscal impact on local schools. A recent analysis by FNS

and the Department's Economic Research Service found that the menu

planning aspects of this proposal can be met at the current cost of

food in the National School Lunch Program. Therefore, food costs should

not be a barrier to implementation of this regulation.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program

are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos.

10.555 and 10.553, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of

Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation

with State and local officials. (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and final

rule-related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,

Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive

effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies

which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its

full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have

retroactive effect unless so specified in the ``Effective Date''

section of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this proposed rule or the application of the provisions,

all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the

National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the

administrative procedures are set forth under the following

regulations: (1) School food authority appeals of State agency findings

as a result of an administrative review must follow State agency

hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2)

School food authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of an

administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established

pursuant to 7 CFR 210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of State

Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR 235.11(b)) must follow the

FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR

235.11(f).

Information Collection

This proposed rule contains information collection requirements

which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

The title, description, and respondent description of the information

collections are shown below with an estimate of the annual reporting

and recordkeeping burdens. Included in the estimate is the time for

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. The Department would like to note that the

description of burden hours represents full implementation of the

proposed regulation, which would be School Year 1998-9, and only

provides for the recordkeeping burden associated with the proposed

regulatory changes.

Title: National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program:

Nutrition Objectives for School Meals.

Description: Under this proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives, some

existing recordkeeping activities contained in 7 CFR 210 and 220 would

be affected. The OMB control numbers are 0584-006 and 0584-0012,

respectively.

Description of Respondents: State agencies, school food authorities

and schools doing on-site preparation of meals.

Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual number Annual Average burden Annual burden

of respondents frequency per response hours

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 CFR 210.8 (a)(3):

Existing.................................... 20,249 12 2 hours 485,976

Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0

Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -485,976

7 CFR 210.10/210.10a:

Existing.................................... \1\71,176 180 .25 \1\3,202,920

Proposed.................................... 71,176 180 .333 4,266,289

Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. +1,063,369

7 CFR 210.15(b)(4):

Existing.................................... 20,249 12 52.333 12,716,291

Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0

Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -12,716,291

7 CFR 220.8/220.8a:

Existing.................................... \2\60,585 180 .083 \2\905,140

Proposed.................................... 60,585 180 .117 1,275,920

Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. +370,780

7 CFR 220.13(i):

Existing.................................... 5,658 12 34 2,308,464

Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0

Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -2,308,464

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\The current OMB approved burden is based on 70,455 schools. However, for the purposes of a more accurate

comparison, the current burden has been adjusted here to include the same number of schools used to determine

the proposed burden.

\2\The current OMB approved burden is based on 49,962 schools. However, for the purposes of a more accurate

comparison, the current burden has been adjusted here to include the same number of schools used to determine

the proposed burden.

As required by section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980, 44 U.S.C. 3504(h), FNS has submitted a copy of this proposed rule

to OMB for review of these information collection requirements. Other

organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments regarding

this burden estimate or any aspects of these information collection

requirements, including suggestions for reducing the burdens, should

direct them to the Policy and Program Development Branch, Child

Nutrition Division, (address above) and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Laura Oliven, Desk Officer for FNS.

Background

Nutrition Standards in the School Meal Programs

The primary purpose of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), as

originally stated by Congress in 1946 in section 2 of the National

School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. 1751, is ``to safeguard the health

and well-being of the Nation's children * * *.'' At that time,

nutritional concerns in the United States centered on nutrient

deficiencies and issues of underconsumption. Over time, meal

requirements for the NSLP, 7 CFR 210.10, were designed to provide foods

sufficient to approximate one-third of the National Academy of

Sciences' Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). Participating schools

were required to offer meals that complied with general patterns

established by the Department. These patterns were developed to provide

a balanced meal by focusing on minimum amounts of specific components

(meat/meat alternate, bread/bread alternate, vegetables, fruits and

dairy products) rather than on the nutrient content of the entire meal.

Over the years, virtually no substantive changes have been made to

these patterns.

An array of scientific data now augments our knowledge by

documenting that excesses in consumption are a major concern because of

their relationship to the incidence of chronic disease. The typical

diet in the United States is high in fat, saturated fat and sodium and

low in complex carbohydrates and fiber. The meal requirements for the

NSLP have not kept pace with the growing consensus of the need to

modify eating habits. Given the importance of school meals to the

nation's children, especially needy children, the Department is

committed to meeting its health responsibilities by updating the

nutrition standards for school meals to ensure that children have

access to a healthful diet as well as an adequate one. To accomplish

this task, the Department is proposing to have school meals conform to

the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (hereinafter referred to as

the Dietary Guidelines) as well as provide proper levels of nutrients

and calories.

Although this proposal would expressly incorporate the 1990 Dietary

Guidelines into the school meals programs' nutrition requirements, the

Department will consider incorporating into the regulations any updates

of the Dietary Guidelines or other scientific recommendations. Specific

use of the 1990 Dietary Guidelines will allow the Department to review

any revisions of the Dietary Guidelines to determine their

applicability to school programs, and will avoid any undue burden on

State agencies and school food authorities to make the changes without

the direction of implementing regulations.

Scientific Studies Leading to Development of the Dietary Guidelines

Over the past thirty years a large body of evidence based on

epidemiological, clinical and laboratory investigation has established

that dietary patterns in the United States are associated with an

increased risk of chronic disease including coronary heart disease,

stroke, diabetes and certain types of cancer (Surgeon General's Report

on Nutrition and Health, 1988; National Academy of Sciences, Diet and

Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, 1989). Research

summarized in the Surgeon General's Report indicates that five of the

ten leading causes of death in the United States are associated with

diet.

As a result of this accumulating body of scientific research

establishing diet/disease links, dietary recommendations for the United

States population were developed in the late 1970's. The first of these

developed in 1977 by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human

Needs, established Dietary Goals for the United States. This was

followed closely by The Surgeon General's Report: Healthy People

(1979). USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

released the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980.

The Dietary Guidelines were subsequently updated in 1985 and again

in 1990. Also in 1990, Title III of the National Nutrition Monitoring

and Related Research Act of 1990 (NNMRRA) (Pub. L. 101-445), 7 U.S.C.

5301, et seq., was enacted. Section 301 of the NNMRRA, 7 U.S.C.

5341(a), requires that the Dietary Guidelines be reviewed at least

every five years by a panel of experts in the various fields that

contribute to nutrition guidance. The task of the panel is to decide

whether there is sufficient evidence for altering the existing Dietary

Guidelines and, if so, to recommend specific changes. The Secretaries

of the DHHS and USDA then make the final decision on whether or not to

incorporate the recommended changes.

The process was first established when the Senate Appropriations

Committee, in November, 1980, stipulated that a Dietary Guidelines

Advisory Committee be established to review the first edition of the

Dietary Guidelines and to make any recommendations deemed appropriate.

The committee consisted of nine members (three from USDA, three from

DHHS and three selected from a list of nominees recommended by the

National Academy of Sciences). In 1988, a second committee comprised of

nine prominent experts in nutrition and health was appointed by the

Secretaries of USDA and DHHS. Pursuant to Section 301(a) of the NNMRRA,

a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will be empaneled in 1995 to

determine whether the 1990 Guidelines should be modified.

As a result, the Dietary Guidelines are based on the best available

scientific and medical knowledge. Consequently, the Department is

proposing to use the Dietary Guidelines as the basis for the nutrition

standards for school meals. This established procedure enables medical

and scientific experts to continually review and recommend updating of

the Dietary Guidelines in light of the most current and highly-regarded

data in this area. Moreover, the private sector and general public have

widely endorsed and relied upon the Dietary Guidelines in nutrition

education programs, activities and marketing. Because of the widespread

acceptance of the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines, the

Department believes that the transition to using these recommendations

as the cornerstone for the school meal programs will be readily

accepted.

The 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health and a

1989 National Academy of Science Report: Diet and Health: Implications

for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk reinforce the Dietary Guidelines. One

common theme runs throughout each of the publications, that is, an

improved diet can have positive health consequences.

The most recent Diet and Health report issued by the Food and

Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences (1989) provides a

very thorough review of the scientific evidence linking diet to disease

and gives quantifiable goals for some of the Dietary Guidelines. The

report recommends that Americans reduce fat intake to 30% or less of

calories, reduce saturated fat intake to less than 10% of calories and

reduce the intake of cholesterol to less than 300 mg per day. The

report also recommends that sodium intake be limited to 2400 milligrams

or less per day.

School Meals' Lack of Compliance With Current Dietary Guidelines

The current Dietary Guidelines recommend that people eat a variety

of foods; maintain a healthy weight; choose a diet with plenty of

vegetables, fruits, and grain products; and use sugar and sodium in

moderation. The Dietary Guidelines also recommend diets low in fat,

saturated fat, and cholesterol so that over time, fat comprises 30 per

cent or less of caloric intake, and saturated fat less than 10 per cent

of total calories, for persons two years of age and older.

However, information available to the Department consistently shows

that children's diets, including meals served in schools, do not

conform to the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. For example,

according to data from the 1989 and 1990 Continuing Survey of Food

Intakes by Individuals conducted by USDA, fat composed, on average, 35

per cent of calories for the diets of children ages six to nineteen.

Equally significant were the findings of a nationally

representative USDA study entitled the School Nutrition Dietary

Assessment (SNDA) Study. Released in October, 1993, the SNDA Study

presented findings on the nutrients and foods provided in school meals

and described the dietary intakes of students on a typical school day.

A total of 545 schools were surveyed, and approximately 3,350 students

in grades one through twelve (with assistance from parents for children

grades one and two) provided detailed information about foods and

beverages consumed in a day that included school attendance. The study

compared nutrients provided in school meals with the Dietary

Guidelines' recommendations on fat and saturated fat, the National

Research Council's (NRC) Diet and Health Recommendations on sodium,

cholesterol and carbohydrate intake, and the current objective that the

nutrients provided in the NSLP meet one-third of the RDA and that the

School Breakfast Program (SBP) meet one-fourth of the RDA.

The SNDA findings showed that, while school lunches meet or exceed

one-third of the RDA for key nutrients and food energy, they do not

meet the recommended levels of fat and saturated fat established by the

Dietary Guidelines. In fact, the report showed that school lunches

exceeded the Dietary Guidelines' recommendations for fat and saturated

fat. Specifically, the average percentage of calories from total fat

was 38 per cent compared with the recommended goal of 30 per cent or

less; and the percentage from saturated fat was 15 per cent, compared

with the recommended goal of less than 10 per cent. The report also

found that children who ate the school lunch consumed a significantly

higher amount of calories from fat than children who brought their

lunch from home or obtained a lunch from vending machines or elsewhere

at school. Further, the report showed that virtually no schools were in

compliance with the Dietary Guidelines. In over 40 percent of schools,

students could select a meal that met the Dietary Guidelines, but few

did so. The SNDA study also showed that while school meals met the NRC

recommendation on cholesterol, the meals did not meet the NRC

recommendations on sodium and carbohydrate levels. In fact, the level

for sodium, at 1,479 milligrams, was nearly two times the lunch target

of 800 milligrams.

Even though the SBP did meet most of the recommendations in the

Dietary Guidelines, the majority of school meals do not conform to

current scientific knowledge of what constitutes a healthful diet. The

SNDA findings underscore that the program has not adapted or changed

school meal patterns over the years to incorporate scientific knowledge

about diet. This situation is cause for concern because it demonstrates

the need for significant improvement if the programs are to play their

appropriate role in promoting long-term health through proper

nutrition.

As the first step toward achieving meaningful improvement in

children's diets and, thus, their health and future well being, the

Department considers it necessary to update the regulations which

establish the specific nutrition criteria for reimbursable school meals

to incorporate the RDA for key nutrients, energy allowances for

calories, and the most current nutritional standards as outlined in the

Dietary Guidelines. In this way, the school meal programs can provide

an example of nutritional achievement as well as ensuring that children

are served healthful meals.

Before proceeding with a rulemaking, however, the Department

recognized the importance of public input. The following is a

description of the Department's procedure for obtaining input and a

discussion of significant issues raised by commenters.

Providing a Public Forum

To obtain input from the public prior to drafting proposed

regulations, the Department solicited comments on nutrition objectives

for school meals through public hearings and written comments. In a

Notice published in the Federal Register (58 FR 47853, September 13,

1993), the Department announced a series of four public hearings. Any

person who was interested could register to speak at any of the

hearings. Persons unable to testify in person were invited to submit

written comments. The Notice identified the following four questions as

the focus areas for comments and suggestions:

I. What are the health consequences of children's current dietary

patterns?

II. How can the Dietary Guidelines for Americans be used to bring

about measurable nutritional improvements in school meals and in

children's diets?

III. What are the opportunities and obstacles in meeting current

nutrition recommendations in school meal programs?

IV. What actions can the USDA, parents, school food service, food

industry and other public and private organizations take to encourage

the implementation of current nutrition recommendations in local

schools?

The four hearings were held in Atlanta, Georgia on October 13,

1993; in Los Angeles, California on October 27, 1993; in Flint,

Michigan on November 12, 1993; and in Washington, DC on December 7,

1993. Each hearing was presided over jointly by officials from USDA and

officials from USDA's Federal partners in this effort--the Department

of Education (DOEd) and DHHS. The inclusion of representatives from

DOEd and DHHS is an important asset in modifying the school meal

programs both because of their expertise and their missions. The school

meal programs must be considered in the context of the educational

framework, as overseen by DOEd, and the national policies regarding

health care and disease prevention under the aegis of DHHS. Therefore,

USDA is very pleased that a partnership is being forged among all

Federal agencies responsible for assisting the nation's schoolchildren.

USDA is also pleased to be working with DOEd and DHHS to further their

policy initiatives--Goals 2000: Educate America Act (DOEd) and Healthy

People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

Objectives (DHHS). Of particular concern are solutions to issues such

as increasing public awareness of the links between diet and health,

familiarizing the public with the need to establish good eating habits

in children that will be carried on through their lifetimes and finding

innovative ways to incorporate the school meal as a learning experience

into daily school curriculums.

A variety of witnesses from the fields of medicine, nutrition and

education, food service, production and processors and other food

industry representatives, as well as parents, students and other

consumers and the general public, testified at each of the hearings.

Witnesses were asked to focus their remarks on one of the four

questions stated above. A transcript of each hearing was prepared, and

witnesses could, if they wished, also submit written testimony and

copies of any materials used to prepare their remarks. As noted above,

the Federal Register Notice also solicited written comments from anyone

who could not attend one of the hearings. To be assured of

consideration, comments had to be submitted on or before December 15,

1993. The written testimony and all comment letters were reviewed and

analyzed by the Department prior to preparation of this proposed

regulation. This portion of the preamble provides a summary of the

comments.

Summary of Comments Received

The overwhelming majority of commenters, representing a broad range

of backgrounds and experiences, called for improvements to school

meals. Comments from the public, students, and parents, while

expressing serious concerns and supporting change, were general in

nature and provided few specific details. However, commenters from the

medical, nutrition, and food advocacy communities, State and local food

service professionals, and food industry representatives provided

detailed information and frequently recommended specific actions.

Commenter Categories

A total of 363 witnesses testified at the hearings, and an

additional 2,013 written comments were received by the Department. Of

the 2,376 commenters: 21% were medical professionals, nutritionists or

dietitians, representatives of public health, nutrition, or food

organizations; 21% were from the general public; 21% were parents and

students; 16% were school food service personnel, representatives of

school food service organizations or representatives from State

education/child nutrition agencies; 11% were teachers, school officials

or representatives from school associations; 7% were food industry

representatives; and 3% were representatives of other State or Federal

agencies or members of Congress.

The Department is very pleased that so many persons took the time

to testify or to submit written comments and would like to take this

opportunity to express its appreciation for their comments and

suggestions. The commenters represented an extensive cross-section of

perspectives and provided a great variety of opinions and

recommendations. Especially gratifying were the number of students and

parents who commented. These groups are, after all, the constituency

that the Department considers program ``customers,'' and it is these

groups the Department is seeking to serve better.

Comment Breakdown

The following number of commenters addressed some aspect of the

four basic questions: I. 796; II. 703; III. 752; IV. 1,464. Though

comments varied greatly in content, the following significant themes

emerged: (1) The need to improve school meals in order to improve the

health of children; (2) the need for school meals to reflect current

nutrition recommendations, specifically reductions in fat and saturated

fat as recommended in the Dietary Guidelines; (3) the importance of an

integrated nutrition education program that involves students, parents,

teachers, and school food service personnel; (4) the need to revise

current commodity programs to provide schools with more nutritious

foods; and (5) the need to incorporate nutritional improvements while

at the same time improving the appeal of meals offered to ensure that

nutritious meals are consumed.

The Department also notes that many commenters raised distinct

issues within the four stated questions. For example, many commenters

cited the need for vegetarian alternatives; others argued for inclusion

of fast food companies in the NSLP, and several specific commodity

issues were raised. Therefore, the Department has included an analysis

of several of these issues in this preamble. Following are the more

prevalent issues raised by the over 2,300 commenters and the number of

commenters who addressed them:

(1) Fat levels in school meals: 1,048;

(2) The need for more fruits and vegetables: 829;

(3) The importance of nutrition education: 794;

(4) Concerns about milk and dairy products including the statutory

requirement for whole milk and recommendations for a beverage

substitute: 687;

(5) The Department's Food Distribution Program and commodities:

493;

(6) The costs and operational difficulties of implementing the

Dietary Guidelines: 448;

(7) The need for whole grains in school meals: 387;

(8) Fast foods and fast food companies (both for and against

availability in schools): 385;

(9) Vegetarian alternatives for school meals: 263;

(10) Sodium levels in school meals: 213;

(11) The importance of breakfast: 200.

Readers should note that while all comments were taken into

consideration, this preamble does not generally discuss individual

comments. The preamble does, however, address the common themes which

emerged and responds to specific individual comments when they raised

significant issues.

Health Consequences Comments

Close to 800 commenters addressed some issue relevant to health

consequences and diet. The majority of commenters were from the public

and the medical communities. Generally speaking, all of the commenters

focused on the link between diet and disease, specifically,

cardiovascular disease, obesity, and cancer. The majority of these

commenters cited the high incidence of cardiovascular disease in the

United States, both among children and adults, and the need to improve

the diets of young children in order to prevent the development of

heart disease in adulthood.

Many commenters wrote in support of the positions taken by a number

of major medical associations. These commenters focused on the

importance of improving the diets of children, given the strong

evidence that heart disease begins early in life, and emphasized the

need to provide foods rich in fiber and complex carbohydrates for the

possible prevention of some cancers.

A number of commenters addressed the potential link between diet

and learning and behavioral difficulties. These comments ranged from

general observations regarding improper nutrition and lack of

concentration, to specific concerns addressing functional disabilities,

behavioral disturbances, fatigue, and cognitive disabilities.

Commenters also pointed out that nutritional issues are especially

vital for under-privileged and ethnic populations. Specifically,

commenters cited the poor nutritional intake among low income children

and certain minority populations. One commenter indicated that these

populations, who are most at risk, do not appear to associate

nutritional risk factors with leading causes of death. Commenters also

expressed concern over the high incidence of major diseases among low-

income, minority populations--specifically, the higher incidence of

heart disease and hypertension among African-Americans, obesity among

Hispanics and Native Americans, and diabetes among Native Americans.

Finally, a large number of commenters addressed the growing

incidence of obesity among children, and the threat this poses to

future health. A number of commenters expressed concern over the lack

of physical activity in schools as a factor leading to the increase of

obesity among school children. Several indicated the need to integrate

exercise with other components of good health including school meals.

In addition, the unique needs of children with special health problems,

the need for proper diet in the prevention of osteoporosis, and the

escalating cost of health care and the role of diet as a preventative

measure were identified as important concerns.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans' Comments

Over 700 commenters, many from the public and from the school food

service community, addressed the issue of school meals meeting

nutritional guidelines, the majority of which overwhelmingly agreed

that meals should comply with the Dietary Guidelines, especially the

recommended limits on fat and saturated fat. Most commenters agreed

with the need for school meals to meet the Dietary Guidelines; however,

several commenters indicated that compliance with the Dietary

Guidelines should be voluntary. With respect to the current meal

patterns, many school food service commenters indicated that they could

not meet the Dietary Guidelines within the meal pattern requirements,

and others indicated that the current meal pattern requirements make it

difficult to provide multi-cultural meals to children.

Many commenters supported the implementation of Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning (NSMP), a menu planning system that is based on the

analysis of nutrients. Commenters believed this system would provide

increased flexibility in meal planning as well as consistent analysis

of nutrients. Commenters also suggested that this NSMP approach can

assist in providing more culturally diverse meals. It must be noted

that some commenters expressed concern that some smaller schools may

not have or be able to afford the technical capability needed to

conduct the analysis. Some commenters also suggested that the

Department or State agencies should develop menus that meet the Dietary

Guidelines. These menus can be used by smaller and school districts

with fewer resources, which may initially have difficulty implementing

NSMP.

Nutrition Education Comments

Close to 800 commenters pointed to the need for nutrition education

for parents, teachers, children, food service staff, and school

administrators. Many commenters came from the nutrition and food

service arenas as well as the general public. Commenters supported the

idea that nutrition education should be included in comprehensive

health education curriculums and should begin at an early age.

Commenters also indicated the need for nutrition education to be

reinforced by healthful meals in the cafeteria. Commenters pointed to

the need for a national nutrition media campaign. Many school food

service commenters expressed their desire for national minimum

professional standards which food service personnel would be expected

to meet. In addition, a significant number of commenters urged health

promotion as a component of health care. Finally, many commenters

supported the need for increased funding for the Department's Nutrition

Education and Training (NET) program, 7 CFR Part 227.

Taste and Plate Waste Comments

Many commenters from a wide range of commenter categories were

quite critical of the current quality of school meals, noting that lack

of appeal leads to increased plate waste. Some cautioned, however, that

drastic changes in the kinds of food served may drive children away

from school meals. These commenters generally supported the need to

make meals both appealing to children and nutritious. A number of

commenters also cautioned that the increased amount of certain foods

that may be necessary to provide a nutritious diet may result in more

plate waste if children do not find the meals to be appetizing. Several

commenters supported the need to involve culinary institutes and chefs

in meal preparation as a way to improve taste and presentation.

Fat in Meals Comments

Nearly one out of two commenters discussed fat in school meals,

with most of these commenters coming from the general public and the

medical community. The large majority of commenters who addressed the

issue of fat content cited the need to lower fat and saturated fat

levels in school lunches. Some of the comments were general statements

such as ``need more low fat foods,'' while others made specific

recommendations detailing the levels of fat and saturated fat that

school meals should meet.

A number of medical, public health, and school food service related

organizations addressed this issue, all of which were in support of

lowering the fat content of meals. A number of commenters recommended

that the fat content of meals be set at between 10 to 20 percent of

total calories--lower than the current Dietary Guidelines

recommendation of 30 percent of calories from fat.

A number of food service workers and directors cautioned that

increasing portion sizes of certain foods and serving more expensive

fresh produce to meet a 30 percent limit on calories from fat may

result in higher costs. Some commenters also expressed concern that

lowering fat may result in decreased calories critical for growing

children. Several commenters advised that low fat meals need to be

appealing so children will consume them.

Several industry representatives indicated that industry is

responsive to the need to lower fat and is already making a number of

changes to provide more low fat products. A number of commenters,

including food service staff, parents and members of the general public

made specific recommendations on how to lower fat in school meals, such

as trimming or draining fat from meat, eliminating added fats from

vegetables, and serving soups more often.

Moreover, many commenters, primarily students and the general

public, suggested that the fat content in school meals could be reduced

by offering more vegetarian meals, eliminating the whole milk

requirement, revising the commodity system to encourage more purchases

of low fat items such as fruits and vegetables, and reducing the amount

of fast food items and processed foods in school meals.

Meat and Meat Related Comments

The Department received over 200 comments related to meat products,

with most comments coming from students, parents and the general

public. Many commenters indicated that the current serving size for the

meat/meat alternate component is too large and recommended that schools

cut down on the amount of meat served. Commenters also indicated that

more poultry and fish should be offered. Some commenters recommended

that tofu and isolated soy proteins, as well as yogurt, be added to the

list of allowable meat alternatives. (The Department wishes to call

attention to the fact that isolated soy proteins are currently

permitted with some limitations.) On the other hand, several industry

representatives cautioned against reducing the amount of meat too much

due to its nutritional contributions, specifically, essential amino

acids, iron, zinc, and vitamin B6. They also observed that children are

familiar with meat and will consume it more readily than some

alternative protein sources.

Menu Selection and Variety Comments

The Department received over 250 comments in support of offering

more vegetarian meals. Commenters supported the low fat nature of

vegetarian meals and their contribution to a healthful diet. Others

addressed the need to expose children to more vegetarian foods and

foods from diverse cultures at an early age. Some commenters provided

specific examples of non-meat items, such as tofu and other plant-based

sources, that could be used in school meals, while others simply

indicated a general need for more meat-free alternatives. Students as

well as school food service personnel indicated the need to offer

vegetarian choices as students are requesting them more.

The Department received over 800 comments in support of the use of

more fruits, vegetables, or grain products. Commenters gave specific

recommendations regarding preparation methods and serving ideas,

including offering salad bars more frequently, increasing the variety

of fruits and vegetables, and serving more whole grain items. Others

recommended the use of more grain and bean products, citing their

nutritional benefit as well as low cost. Many school food service

commenters expressed concern over serving more and a wider variety of

fruits and vegetables as children may not be familiar with them and,

therefore, may not consume them.

Breakfast Comments

About 200 commenters, primarily from the medical, school food

service, and education communities, addressed breakfast meal issues

with a number of these commenters supporting the importance of

breakfast to the health of children. A number of food service personnel

indicated their success with the SBP and desire to increase

participation. Others, while supporting the SBP, expressed concern with

the nutritional quality of breakfasts currently offered.

Financial, Paperwork, and Other Operational Obstacles Comments

Over 250 commenters addressed financial and paperwork obstacles,

with many of these comments coming from food service (local and State)

professionals, the general public, and the nutrition community. A

number of commenters indicated that the need to avoid operating at a

deficit has prevented food service staff from providing more nutritious

meals. Commenters also complained that the amount of paperwork required

to administer the feeding programs is excessive and that the review

system is cumbersome and inflexible. Specifically, commenters stressed

the need to focus more on nutrition and less on meal-by-meal

accountability, income verification, and review requirements.

Many commenters expressed concern over the cost of producing meals

under the current meal pattern system. Commenters indicated that

schools already find it difficult to provide meals within current

resources and maintained that any further nutritional requirements

placed on schools would result in additional financial hardship.

Commenters specifically noted obstacles such as the increased cost of

providing more foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, low fat and

low sodium ingredients, and the increased portion sizes needed to meet

the nutrition standards without exceeding the 30% fat limitation. On

the other hand, some parents and students indicated that they would be

willing to pay extra for more nutritious meals.

A number of commenters indicated that the school meal periods are

not adequate, thereby forcing students to throw food away, consume it

too quickly, or bring meals from home to prevent waiting in the lunch

line. Others expressed concern that more nutritious meals would require

larger portions or extra food items that children may not be able to

consume during short lunch periods.

Partnerships and Coordination Comments

A number of commenters expressed the need for the Department to

establish partnerships with other Federal agencies such as DOEd, DHHS,

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as with

industry representatives, State agencies, school boards, nutrition

professionals, extension programs, parents, teachers, and especially

students. Commenters also addressed the need for Federal efforts to

support, not hamper, local efforts. Commenters indicated that the

Department should use its resources and purchasing power to promote

change and improve meal quality.

Commodity Comments

The Department received close to 500 comments on various aspects

connected with the donation of commodities to schools. The majority of

these commenters were from the general public as well as the school

food service and industry arenas. Over 250 commenters indicated that a

more healthful variety of USDA commodities should be made available to

States. The majority encouraged the Department to reduce the amount of

fat, cholesterol, and/or sodium in the commodities. These and a number

of closely related comments are perhaps best characterized by the

opinion of over 50 commenters that the commodities provided to the NSLP

should comply with the Dietary Guidelines.

The Department also notes that over 100 commenters addressed the

Department's September 1993 announcement of the Fresh Fruit and

Vegetable initiative. Most of the comments were supportive of the

initiative. Twenty-five commenters stressed the need to use the funds

available to schools for direct food purchases as effectively as

possible.

Miscellaneous Comments

Some commenters indicated the need to upgrade school kitchens to

allow for the storage and preparation of more nutritious meals. In line

with this objective, some commenters urged reauthorization of Federal

funding for food service equipment. Commenters also pointed to the need

for schools to disclose nutrition information so that students can make

informed choices and parents and the community would have a basis by

which to assess progress. A number of commenters cautioned against

instituting changes too rapidly and encouraged the Department to take

gradual steps. Others recommended that the Department market successful

programs to serve as models. Several commenters recommended that the

Department allow for a reimbursable snack to be served as a way to

supply the extra foods that may be required to meet nutritional

standards.

Other Comments Not Addressed in This Proposal

Finally, the Department wishes to call attention to several issues

raised by commenters that are not germane to this proposal, either

because of statutory constraints or because they address areas in which

the Department believes State agencies and school food authorities need

flexibility.

Milk and Dairy Products

The Department received over 600 comments regarding milk and dairy

products, with most comments coming from the general public, parents

and the school food service community. The majority of commenters

recommended that schools not be required to offer whole milk, with a

large number of these comments coming from the food service community.

Commenters' reasons for eliminating the whole milk requirement included

the high fat content, the perceived conflict with the Dietary

Guidelines and its higher cost. Many commenters also recommended that

non-dairy alternatives be offered in place of milk, as dairy products

are high in fat, cholesterol, and protein; contain little iron and

fiber; and, commenters claimed, are not tolerated well by many

children. Commenters also recommended that more skim, one percent, and

two percent milk be offered.

A few commenters supported maintaining the whole milk requirement,

on the grounds that children may not consume low fat alternatives and

eliminating the requirement would be costly to the Federal dairy

program. Others, while not supporting the whole milk requirement, did

caution against reducing or eliminating dairy products, as they provide

necessary calcium for growing children.

The Department wishes to call attention to the fact that the

requirements that fluid milk be available as a beverage and that whole

milk be available as an option for the NSLP, are required by section

9(a)(2) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2). Therefore, the Department

cannot deviate from these provisions by regulatory action.

Free Meals to All Children

Over 140 commenters, primarily from the school food service

community, advocated a program in which meals would be served free of

charge to all children, regardless of their families' economic status.

Such a program would eliminate the income eligibility requirements, and

all children would receive meals free of charge, regardless of their

family's income. Many indicated that such a program would reduce

paperwork, increase time for necessary nutrition-related activities,

and reduce the stigma associated with participation.

Again, however, such a revision would require specific statutory

authority in light of the requirement of section 9(b)(1)(A) of the NSLA

42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1)(A), that school meals be provided at no cost only

to those children from households with incomes of less than 130% of the

Federal Income Poverty Guidelines. The Department also notes that such

a program, implemented fully in all schools, would increase the cost of

NSLP by $7 billion if fully implemented in School Year 1996. About one-

half of this increase would be spent on higher reimbursement for meals

currently reimbursed at the fully paid and reduced price rates. In

other words, about $3.5 billion of the additional funding would be

spent even before reaching any more children.

Fast Foods, Competitive Foods, Other Foods

Several commenters were concerned with the increase of fast food

companies, fast food-like items and competitive foods of low

nutritional value that are sold in schools. Others felt that, since

fast foods are popular, their use should be increased. The Department

is not proposing any specific provisions on fast foods or competitive

foods at this time. However, it should be noted that, under this

proposal, meals claimed for reimbursement which include such foods will

be required to comply with established nutritional standards over one

week. Further, school food authorities would be required to continue to

observe the restrictions currently in the regulations prohibiting the

sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in competition with the NSLP

and SBP.

Several commenters recommended that certain kinds of foods--

principally milk, meat and processed foods--be eliminated entirely from

program meals. These recommendations were based on the assumption that

some foods are good for people and some are intrinsically bad. However,

the Department does not share this view. The Department continues to

believe that it is important to obtain essential nutrients from a

variety of foods. The Department also emphasizes that foods,

particularly those high in fat, must be eaten in moderation, but there

are no plans to prohibit any foods from school meals other than the

foods of minimal nutritional value currently enumerated in appendix B

of part 210 for the NSLP and Sec. 220.12 for the SBP.

Minimum Professional Standards

Some commenters suggested that the Department establish minimum

professional standards for local food service workers. The Department

is aware that efforts are being made to address this issue. For

example, the American School Food Service Association has developed a

program to certify food service workers. However, given the wide range

of variances in needs and resources among the 20,000 school food

authorities and 92,000 schools operating under the NSLP, as well as

varying State requirements, the Department does not believe it is

feasible to propose uniform national standards. Nevertheless, the

Department does intend to continue to provide technical assistance and

guidance to both State agencies and local school food authorities on

ways to improve food service operations.

Cash in Lieu of Commodities/Commodity Letter of Credit

Under section 18(b) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1769(b), Congress

established the Cash in Lieu of Commodities (CASH) and Commodity Letter

of Credit (CLOC) demonstration projects as a means of examining

alternatives to the current commodity distribution system for schools.

Under CASH, schools receive their per-meal commodity support

entitlement (currently $.14) in the form of a direct cash payment. CLOC

provides commodity support through a Letter of Credit which must be

used to purchase specific commodities that mirror the Department's

commodity purchases. Fifty-nine school districts participate in the

CASH/CLOC demonstration. The current project authorization expires at

the end of Fiscal Year 1994.

Several commenters supported CASH/CLOC, while a small number

opposed it. Others implicitly favored the current commodity

distribution system if more healthful commodities can be provided.

These commenters would support alternatives only in the event that the

current commodity system cannot be strengthened and improved. The

Department intends to continue and expand efforts already underway to

improve the commodity program. Moreover, the Department does not have

the statutory authority to address the CASH/CLOC issue through the

rulemaking process.

Guiding Principles and Framework for Action

Improving the nutritional standards of school meals is our national

health responsibility. There is no question that diet is linked to

health and that chronic disease often begins in childhood. Since eating

habits are firmly established by age 12, it is essential that dietary

patterns be formed early. What children eat helps determine not only

how healthy they are as children, but how healthy they will be as

adults.

Updating our nutrition standards and streamlining the

administration of school meals programs reinforces President Clinton's

priorities for health care reform and government reinvention. Five

principles are at the core of our vision and grow out of our analysis

of public comments and the participation of those who hold a stake in a

healthy future for our children. These principles are:

Healthy children: Our goal is to provide our nation's children with

access to school meal programs that promote their health, prevent

disease, and meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Customer appeal: We understand that if food doesn't look good or

taste good, children will not eat it. We must involve students,

parents, teachers, and the food and agriculture community in any change

through a national nutrition education campaign, using the media that

children and parents understand and speaking in the language that they

speak.

Flexibility: We have to reduce the burden of paperwork, streamline

reporting systems, recognize regional and economic differences and

offer schools different approaches to designing menus that meet the

Dietary Guidelines. To do this, we must use technology more

effectively.

Investing in people: We must provide schools and school food

service directors with the training and technical assistance they need

to bring about nutrition changes in the school meals programs and build

the nutrition skills of our nation's children, and thereby improve

their health.

Building partnerships: To meet our national health responsibility

to American children and to increase cost effectiveness, we must forge

partnerships throughout the public and private sectors. This includes

continuing collaborative efforts with our federal partners at the

Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and building

bridges to consumer and industry groups.

Guided by these five principles, USDA constructed a comprehensive,

integrated framework for action:

I. Eating for Health: Meeting the Dietary Guidelines. School meal

nutrition standards will be updated and expanded to include the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans with standards for fat and saturated fat as

well as required nutrients. The current meal planning system which

requires that certain types of foods be served in certain quantities

will be replaced by a more flexible system that allows schools to

concentrate on serving a variety of foods in amounts that are suitable

for children.

II. Making Food Choices: Nutrition Education, Training and

Technical Assistance. It is not enough to change the food on the plate.

We must also provide the knowledge that enables children to make

choices that lead to a nutritious diet and improved health. It also is

vital that local meal providers receive training on how to improve meal

quality. This dual initiative to educate children and assist meal

providers offers many opportunities to influence both what foods are

offered by schools and what foods are eaten by children.

III. Maximizing Resources: Getting the Best Value. By marshalling

all available resources and strengthening partnerships with our state

and local cooperators, we will stretch food dollars and cut costs while

improving the nutritional profile of commodities. We will enhance

access to locally grown commodities and better use regional

agricultural resources. And we will provide assistance, training and

the power of federal purchases to help school administrators manage

school meals programs in a more cost-effective manner.

IV. Managing for the Future: Streamlined Administration. It is

necessary to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens of local

administrators. We will streamline procedures and emphasize

administrative flexibility to free state and local food program

managers to concentrate on nutrition.

The Framework for Action

The regulatory proposals that follow are intended to support the

Department's goal of promoting the long term health of children through

updating nutrition standards to include the Dietary Guidelines. In

addition, several of the proposals reflect the Administration's desire

to streamline administration of government programs through increasing

State and local flexibility and making better use of advanced

technology.

It is important to recognize, however, that these regulatory

proposals are but one part of the Department's overall plan for

improving the quality of school meals. The Guiding Principles and

Framework for Action described above grew out of public comment and the

recognition that it is not enough just to change the food served to

children on their plates. What is required is a much broader approach

that includes significant administrative actions initiated by the

Executive Branch.

For example, the Department is committed to investing in people--

both the State and local professionals who operate the program and the

children who participate in it. This investment will take the form of

nutrition education to build the skills necessary to make healthful

food choices, training for food service workers and technical

assistance. The Department has already committed existing funds toward

the development of improved recipes for school meal service, a

computerized data bank of standard nutritional values for foods served

in the school meals program, and a demonstration project on the use of

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. On the nutrition education front, the

Department has already announced a strategy that includes challenge

grants to localities to develop community-based, comprehensive

approaches to nutrition education and a nutrition publication directed

at grade school children. The Department is also assisting local school

food service professionals in working with chefs, farmers and others to

harness all of their unique skills to make school meals appealing and

healthful, and to educate children about food and cooking.

Looking to the future, the Administration's budget proposal for

Fiscal Year 1995 contains a request for $18.4 million in additional

funds to support nutrition education and technical assistance. Plans

for these funds include extensive training for local school meal

providers on how to plan and prepare nutritious and appealing meals as

well as launching a national media campaign directed at building

children's skills at making wise food choices for life-long health.

All these initiatives are being undertaken with the support of

USDA's Federal partners at DHHS and DOE. This collaboration extends to

addressing issues of common concern such as reducing redundant

paperwork requirements, integrating nutrition education into school

curriculum and exploring ways to integrate the school meals program

more fully into the school environment and into school-based health

initiatives. Within the Department, there are also plans to strengthen

ties with the Food Service Management Institute and, indeed, with

private organizations so that as many resources and as much creativity

as possible can be brought to bear on this important issue of improving

children's health through sound nutrition.

Efficient and effective government requires that the use of the

finite resources available to administer the programs be maximized.

Therefore, part of the Department's Framework for Action is to maximize

resources wherever possible. One of the important avenues to pursue in

this regard is effective use of the USDA commodity program. The

Department recognizes that commodity foods are a significant component

of the meals that are served to children and, therefore, need to be as

nutritious as possible. A wide variety of foods ranging from grain

products to fruits and vegetables to meat, poultry and fish are already

being offered. The Department plans to continue to offer this wide

array of foods. Improvement is always possible, however, and the

Department intends to intensify its review of purchase specifications

to assure that products are as low in fat and sodium as possible while

still maintaining palatability for consumers.

In addition, the USDA agencies that are key partners in delivering

commodities are working with one another, as well as with industry, to

modify labels on commodities that go to the schools to include

nutrition information, and to develop new products, like low-fat

cheeses, that will provide the schools with more flexibility to meet

the Dietary Guidelines. This latter effort will have a salutary effect

not only on the commodity program, but could also prove useful in

providing schools with a larger array of healthful products to choose

from when they make their local purchases.

Because schools do purchase significant amounts of food independent

of the commodity program, the Department is also considering various

other strategies for improving the quality and effectiveness of those

purchases. For example, a pilot test is planned for School Year 1994

with the Department of Defense to procure produce for the school meal

programs. Through this project, schools can obtain a much wider variety

of fresh produce than USDA can provide directly. The Department is also

working to facilitate interaction among schools, State Departments' of

Agriculture, small resource farmers and farmers' markets. This has

great potential for improving the quality of the foods used by those

schools that are close to particular growing areas as well as providing

important new markets for small farmers.

In summary, the Department is committed to improving the quality of

school meals and the health of the nation's children through a variety

of approaches. There is complete recognition that success can only be

achieved over time and through the efforts of the Federal government

working in concert with State and local administering agencies,

industry, the Congress, a variety of private organizations and the

ultimate beneficiaries of the school meals programs--children and their

parents.

Proposed Regulatory Changes

Expanding and Updating Nutrition Requirements

The Department's mission continues to be to carry out the declared

policy of Congress to ``safeguard the health and well-being of the

Nation's children.'' In order to meet this goal, school meals must

change to reflect the scientific consensus that is articulated in the

Dietary Guidelines. Therefore, the Department believes that current

nutrition standards must be expanded to incorporate the Dietary

Guidelines in the NSLP and SBP regulations and is proposing to amend

Secs. 210.10 and 220.8 to require that school meals meet the applicable

recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines including the quantified

standards established for fat and saturated fat. Proposed regulations

would also require schools to make an effort to reduce sodium and

cholesterol, increase dietary fiber and serve a variety of foods.

A more comprehensive discussion of implementation occurs later in

this preamble, including the time frames that would be followed for the

shift to the updated nutrition standards.

While the proposed regulations would include the basic provision

that school meals meet nutrition standards over a one week menu cycle,

the proposed revision would also require meals to provide a level of

nutrients for specified age groups rather than meet minimum amounts of

specific food items for each age group as is currently required.

Sections 210.10 and 220.8, therefore, would incorporate nutrition

standards for various age/grade groups based on the RDA for the

following nutrients: Protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, and calcium

as well as the energy allowances for calories. Sections 210.10 and

220.8 would also set the maximum levels of calories from fat and

saturated fat at 30 percent and 10 percent of calories, respectively.

Although RDA have been established for more nutrients than

indicated above, the Department has chosen to monitor only those listed

because these are key nutrients that promote growth and development

which are consistent with those required in the Nutrition Labeling and

Education Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-535). The proposal would also

require schools to decrease the levels of sodium and cholesterol and

increase the amount of dietary fiber in school meals. The Department is

not proposing specific levels for these components, since numeric

targets are not established by the current Dietary Guidelines. However,

progress in this area could be assessed through a variety of ways

including gradual reductions in sodium, and if necessary, cholesterol

levels, and increased use of vegetables, fruits and grain products.

The Department wishes to note that the Dietary Guidelines are

designed for persons aged two and over. The Department will maintain

current meal patterns for children in the zero to eleven months and one

to two year age groups. For children who are two years old, schools

will have the option of using the minimum calorie and nutrient

requirements for school meals for children ages three-six or developing

a separate set of nutrient and calorie levels for this age group.

Finally, because compliance with the Dietary Guidelines will not be

required until School Year 1998-1999, which begins July 1, 1998, the

current meal patterns and quantities will be retained temporarily and

will be redesignated Sec. 210.10a for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8a for the

SBP. This proposal does not apply to infant meal patterns and meal

supplements; therefore, the appropriate sections of the redesignated

Sec. 210.10a and Sec. 220.8a will continue to be followed by schools

serving infants and meal supplements.

New Approaches to Menu Planning: Nutrient Standard Menu Planning and

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning

Schools must currently meet a meal pattern which specifies minimum

amounts (by age group) of the five food items which must be offered in

order to receive reimbursement for meals. An alternate approach that

provides an excellent tool for improving the nutritional quality of

school meals is Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP). Under NSMP, the

menu is developed through the nutrient analysis of all foods offered

over a school week to ensure that meals meet specific nutrition

standards for key nutrients, and meet recommended levels of fat and

saturated fat. Other dietary components that will be analyzed are

cholesterol, sodium and dietary fiber. However, the Department

recognizes that some school food authorities may not have the computer

capability or the degree of access to technical support necessary to

independently conduct NSMP. In these circumstances, the Department is

proposing to allow school food authorities to use a modified form of

NSMP entitled Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP). Use of

ANSMP would allow development and analysis of menus by other entities

while still applying the essentials of NSMP. (A more complete

discussion of ANSMP may be found later in this preamble.)

Under NSMP, the menu planner is expected to use effective

techniques to provide menus that meet the updated nutrition standards.

All menu items (i.e., any single food or combination of food) or other

foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal will be counted toward

meeting the nutrition standards. An exception to this is foods of

minimal nutritional value, as provided for in Sec. 210.11(a)(2) or

Sec. 220.12(b), which are not offered as part of a menu item in a

reimbursable meal. A definition of ``menu item'' is proposed to be

added to Sec. 210.2 and Sec. 220.2 to expand upon the current

definitions of food item and food component that are used in various

sections of the regulations concerned with point of service meal

counts. The definition would also specify that one menu item offered

must be an entree and one must be fluid milk. Further, as discussed

later in this preamble, the Department is proposing that the entree

must be selected as part of a reimbursable lunch.

Menu items will be analyzed based on production levels to more

accurately reflect the overall nutritional composition of the menu.

Menus will be planned, analyzed for nutrient content and adjusted as

needed to ensure that production and selection trends are considered

and nutrition standards are met. A discussion of NSMP software programs

and the National Nutrient Database for Child Nutrition Programs is

provided later in this preamble.

The purpose of NSMP and ANSMP is two-fold: To provide a flexible

way to plan menus using certain nutrient levels, not on limited food

items and amounts, and to measure how well meals are meeting nutrition

standards. The Department is proposing to adopt NSMP and ANSMP by

amending Sec. 210.10(k) and (l) of the regulations to incorporate NSMP

and ANSMP for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(j) and (k) for the SBP.

While school meals will be expected to comply with the updated

nutrition standards and to be planned through NSMP or ANSMP, the

Department wishes to emphasize that compliance monitoring would stress

technical assistance to enable the school to achieve the standards.

While all meals offered during a menu cycle that fail to meet the

established nutrition standards could technically be subject to an

overclaim, the regulations will require State agencies to establish

claims only when school food authorities refuse, not simply fail, to

take corrective action. It is the Department's intent that every effort

be made to provide nutritious meals to children rather than taking

punitive actions which could undermine this initiative. Further

discussion on this point may be found later in this preamble in the

section on monitoring.

Nutrition Disclosure

Since information on the nutritional composition of the menu is

readily available as a result of NSMP/ANSMP, the Department is

proposing to amend Sec. 210.10(n) to encourage school food authorities

to make public disclosure of the nutrients contained in their meals.

Many school food authorities, recognizing the benefits of nutrition

disclosure, already make this information available in the classroom,

on menus or by notifying local media. These benefits include: (1) An

increased awareness on the part of students and parents on the

nutritional quality of school meals; (2) depending on how the

information is disclosed, an enhanced ability for students and parents

to make healthful choices, and; (3) increased support for the school

meal programs through recognition of the improved quality of school

meals.

The Department recognizes the differing needs of school food

authorities, and, therefore, is not proposing to mandate nutrition

disclosure. The Department believes this information should be readily

available to students and parents without their having to request it.

In providing this information, school food authorities would take into

account local factors such as nutrition analysis capabilities and

student/parent requests. For example, the school may disclose

information either: (1) Developed through the weekly nutrient analysis

of meals; (2) based on sample meals offered each day, or; (3) provided

along with food item(s) offered in the cafeteria.

The Department also wishes to emphasize that school food

authorities that make this disclosure would not experience an

additional administrative burden. The information being disclosed is a

product of NSMP/ANSMP, and the school food authority can determine, for

itself, the most efficient means of disclosure.

Although nutrition disclosure will not be required, the Department

recognizes that many school food authorities are already providing this

information to students and parents, and strongly encourages others to

make public such information. The Department would also like to solicit

comments regarding nutrition disclosure, particularly effective

nutrition disclosure approaches; which nutrition information to

disclose; and disclosure's value as a tool to help children choose

nutritious meals.

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning

As stated above, the Department recognizes that some school food

authorities may not have the resources or capacity to independently

conduct NSMP. For these school food authorities, the optional method of

ANSMP is an alternative approach to NSMP which is proposed in

Sec. 210.10(l) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(k) for the SBP. School food

authorities would draw on the expertise of others to provide menu

cycles, adjusted for local needs and preferences. The provided menu

would be analyzed to ensure that it meets the required nutrition

standards. The menu analysis must be consistent with the local

preferences, production records, preparation techniques and food

procurement specifications. The provided menu cycles could be developed

in a variety of ways--by States, consortiums of school food

authorities, by consultants or even by the Federal government.

To ensure consistency with the nutrient analysis of the provided

menu, the following components must be standardized: Recipes, food

product specifications, and preparation techniques. To accurately

reflect the nutrient analysis of the menu as offered, the provided menu

must be analyzed and adjusted to the quantities of food prepared and

served.

In addition, the school, in conjunction with the entity providing

the menu cycle, must periodically review their application of ANSMP to

ensure the suitability of the selected menu cycle and the accuracy with

which it is being managed. (i.e., Are the prescribed procurement

specifications and preparation techniques being followed and are on-

going production adjustments made to reflect student choices, thereby

resulting in reanalysis of the menu?) It is also possible that standard

menus, recipes and procurement specifications could be provided by the

Federal government, then adjusted and reanalyzed at the State or local

level as necessary. The Department is most interested in receiving

comments regarding the usefulness of this approach.

Reimbursable Meals

Schools currently receive reimbursement for each meal served to

children that meets the requirements of the lunch or breakfast meal

pattern and, if applicable, the offer versus serve option. Basically,

the required components (meat/meat alternate, two or more servings of a

vegetable and/or fruit, bread/bread alternate and milk) must be offered

and a minimum number of items must be selected. In order to determine

if the meal chosen by the child is reimbursable, the cashier observes,

at the point of service, if the proper number of components are taken.

Under NSMP and ANSMP, a meal will be reimbursable if at least three

menu items (one must be an entree and one fluid milk) are being

offered, and if at least three menu items are selected. For

reimbursable lunches, one of the menu items selected must be an entree.

If the school participates in offer versus serve, a meal will be

reimbursable if at least three menu items are offered and two menu

items are selected. Again, for reimbursable lunches, one of these two

menu items must be an entree. For the purpose of point of service

counts, this proposal will not change the basic concept of a

reimbursable meal. Cashiers will continue to determine if the proper

number of menu items was selected and, for the lunch service, that one

of the menu items is an entree.

The reason for requiring that one of the selected items for lunch

be an entree stems from the Department's concern that the school

lunches children consume provide an adequate amount of calories and

other essential nutrients. Traditionally, the most significant

nutrition contribution in a school lunch comes from the entree.

Therefore, this proposal is being offered as a way of assuring that

children (particularly those children that participate in offer versus

serve) select and, hopefully, consume the most nutritious lunch

possible.

The Department recognizes that this proposal deviates from current

requirements which do not stipulate that the child must select an

entree for lunch. The Department would be concerned if commenters

believe this restriction inhibits the flexibility that this proposed

rule was designed to promote. For example, if children were inhibited

from selecting lunches that were consistent with ethnic or vegetarian

preferences, or if plate waste was a potential by-product. Therefore,

the Department is particularly interested in receiving comments on and

alternatives to this proposed requirement, including comments on

whether the minimum number of menu items, both in terms of the standard

meal and the offer versus serve option, is adequate even with requiring

selection of an entree for lunch.

The Department is not proposing to extend the requirement that a

reimbursable meal contain an entree to the SBP. This decision was made

due to the nature of the breakfast meal and the possible confusion that

may result by trying to define an ``entree'' for the breakfast program.

Point of Service

While implementation of the updated nutrition standards affects the

content of meals, it will not affect basic counting methodology.

Cashiers will continue to take counts at the point of service on the

basis of the number of menu items selected. Consequently, food service

personnel will be able to recognize individual reimbursable meals, as

they will not differ substantially from current practice.

In fact, under NSMP/ANSMP, point of service identification of a

reimbursable meal may be easier as cashiers would no longer need to

determine which of the required components discussed above have been

meet by a particular food item, such as a pot pie, which contains a

number of different ingredients. Under NSMP/ANSMP, a pot pie would be

the entree which is simply a required one menu item for claiming

purposes.

Preparation for Implementation of NSMP and ANSMP

The Department is currently sponsoring a demonstration project to

evaluate the optimum use of NSMP as a way for school meals to meet the

Dietary Guidelines while ensuring that students also receive needed

nutrients and calories. One of the main objectives of this

demonstration is to assist the Department in identifying the technical

assistance necessary to most efficiently and effectively implement

NSMP. This approach shifts the focus from the traditional specifics of

a meal pattern to meals containing a combination of foods that meet the

nutritional needs of school-age children, by age group, over a school

week. Under NSMP and ANSMP, school food authorities will have more

flexibility in deciding what other foods will be offered as long as the

nutrition standards are met.

The Flexibility of NSMP and ANSMP

The proposed menu development and analysis system has a number of

advantages over the current meal pattern, and the Department believes

the proposed change to adopt NSMP and ANSMP will greatly assist local

school food authorities with implementation of the proposed nutrition

standards. With NSMP and ANSMP, there is greater flexibility in food

selections and portion sizes because meals are not limited to specific

types of foods in specified portions. Further, menus with cultural or

other special preferences will be easier to design.

NSMP and ANSMP would also eliminate the need for cumbersome and

often confusing food crediting decisions such as whether taco chips or

just taco pieces could be considered as a bread alternate or whether

yogurt can be allowed as part of a reimbursable meal. The complex Child

Nutrition labeling program, which requires the Department to determine

how commercial products are credited as food components under the meal

pattern, would be substantially reduced in scope or perhaps even

eliminated entirely. More nutrient dense items could be added to menus

under NSMP, and the nutritional contributions of all foods offered to

the child can be recognized. The Department also wishes to emphasize

that all nutrients offered to the child are counted in the analysis,

including those in foods such as yogurt and desserts which do not

presently count toward a reimbursable meal. Of course, the most

important aspect of both NSMP and ANSMP is that school food authorities

will have an accurate, practical on-going means of determining if the

nutrition standards are being met.

Fortification

This proposal does not require school food authorities to

distinguish between naturally occurring nutrients and those that are

added through fortification. However, the Department is committed to

the principle that the preferred source of adequate nutrition is a meal

comprised of a variety of conventional foods, as recommended in the

Dietary Guidelines, rather than one containing formulated fortified

foods.

The Department has been unable to develop a practical method for

regulating or monitoring fortification. For example, it is virtually

impossible to calculate the amounts of nutrients added to food items

and those naturally occurring, especially for food items with numerous

ingredients. Although a comparison could be made between a fortified

item and a similar item that had no added nutrients, there may not be

an identical product on which to base the comparison.

The Department believes the standards as outlined under NSMP that

meals contain adequate calories and that at least three menu items be

offered, as well as the higher expense of engineered foods, will

inhibit excessive reliance on highly fortified foods.

The Department welcomes commenters to address the use of fortified

foods in school meal programs, particularly whether there are practical

ways to control over-use of fortification, the degree to which this

should be a concern, and potential impacts on the character of school

meals.

It should be noted that if NSMP/ANSMP is implemented on a

nationwide basis, the current regulatory requirements on the use of

alternate foods would no longer be necessary. During the interim and

where the meal patterns are still in use, these regulations would

remain in force.

Operational Aspects of NSMP and ANSMP

National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition Programs

In order to conduct nutrient analysis, data on the nutrients

contained in a wide range of foods must be available. To meet this

need, the Department has developed a centralized National Nutrient

Database to allow for accurate nutrient analysis of the menus and

recipes used in the NSLP and SBP. The National Nutrient Database

contains information on the nutritional composition of: (1) Commodities

supplied through the Department; (2) standard reference food items

which are used in the SBP and NSLP; (3) Quantity Recipes for School

Food Service developed by the Department, and; (4) convenience,

processed and pre-prepared foods from food manufacturers. The

Department is working closely with the food industry to obtain nutrient

analysis of many common food products used by schools for inclusion in

the database.

The implementation of NSMP, as opposed to ANSMP, is dependent upon

the school or school food authority's ability to analyze the nutrient

content of foods. Therefore, the Department is proposing to require

that the National Nutrient Database be incorporated into all school

food service software systems used for menu and recipe analysis under

NSMP. Under ANSMP, the database would be used by the entity providing

assistance with nutrition analysis. The Department is making the

database available free of charge to participating school food

authorities and to computer software companies to develop school food

service software programs. The database will be regularly maintained

and updated to ensure that the information is as accurate and current

as possible. School food authorities would be expected to incorporate

these updates into their own software as they are made available. It

should be noted that a preliminary version of the Department's database

is now available. Information on how to obtain it can be secured from

the Department's Child Nutrition Database Hotline at (301) 436-3536.

School Food Service Software Systems

The computer software industry has many nutrient analysis software

programs on the market. Few of these, however, are specific to the

school programs and do not contain the types of foods, descriptions,

weights and measurements used in these programs. Moreover, the results

of nutrient analysis can vary dramatically depending on which software

package is being used. Nutrient analysis must be based on standardized

specifications to ensure accuracy. Therefore, the Department has also

developed software specifications for NSMP. The overall objective of

any software system used for this purpose is to adapt advanced data

automation technology to simplify completion of the mathematical and

analytical tasks associated with NSMP. The software specifications

include menu planning, nutritional analysis of menus and recipes, and

data management reports presented in a comprehensive, simplified and

user-friendly manner. To ensure that school food authorities are using

a software package which meets the Department's specifications, school

food authorities will be required to use a software system that has

been evaluated by FNS and, as submitted, been determined to meet the

minimum requirements established by FNS. However, such review does not

constitute endorsement by FNS or USDA. This proposed requirement is

found in Sec. 210.10(k)(1)(ii) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(j)(1)(ii)

for the SBP.

Use of Weighted Averages

Some food items are more popular than others and, thus, will be

selected by school children more frequently. To accurately perform an

assessment of the nutritional composition of reimbursable meals

offered, nutrient analysis must be based on production levels of foods

offered, as production levels are an indication of foods actually

selected. For example, a menu item which is chosen frequently (and

therefore more portions are prepared) will contribute more nutrients to

the meal than a menu item chosen less frequently.

The calculation method for computing a weighted nutritional

analysis will require the school food authority to enter the following

information into the selected software program the menu item; portion

size; projected servings of each menu item; and the projected number of

reimbursable meals each day for the school week. It should be noted

that the software specifications discussed above are designed to easily

perform weighting calculations. This provision is proposed in

Sec. 210.10 (k)(2) and Sec. 210.10 (k)(4) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8

(j)(2) and (j)(4).

Definition of School Week

A new definition would be added for ``school week'' to indicate

that, for NSMP and ANSMP, a minimum of three days and a maximum of

seven days must be included. This is because the nutrition analysis is

proposed to be an average of the reimbursable meals served over the

course of a week. To ensure common understanding of the terms NSMP and

ANSMP, a proposed definition would be added to Sec. 210.2 and

Sec. 220.2 explaining the term ``school week.''

Transition to NSMP and ANSMP

The Department recognizes that school food authorities will need

technical assistance in order to implement these changes efficiently.

The Department is conducting NSMP demonstration projects in several

school food authorities, and the ongoing experiences gained from these

will be shared as part of the overall assistance to school food

authorities to phase in NSMP and ANSMP.

The Department also plans to provide extensive training and

technical assistance to State and local agencies as they prepare to

implement NSMP and ANSMP. As noted earlier in this preamble, the

Department has requested specific funding in the Administration's

Fiscal Year 1995 budget for this purpose as well as to fund other

technical assistance and nutrition education activities. Other projects

to support the move towards updated nutrition standards are already

being undertaken within existing resources, including modification of

more than fifty recipes to include more fruits, vegetables, and grain

products and to decrease fat levels, and collaboration with the

National Food Service Management Institute. Finally, the Department is

committed to working with State agencies to target Nutrition Education

and Training (NET) resources more intensely toward implementation of

the Dietary Guidelines.

This proposed regulation would require school food authorities to

adopt the updated nutrition standards and NSMP or ANSMP no later than

July 1, 1998, the start of School Year 1998-99. However, school food

authorities are encouraged to begin working towards full implementation

of the updated nutrition standards as soon as practicable after

publication of a final rule or to even use NSMP, ANSMP, or nutrient-

based menu analysis in conjunction with the current meal patterns prior

to the effective date.

State agencies would need to determine when school food authorities

are ready to begin NSMP or ANSMP and would, of course, provide training

and technical assistance to help school food authorities whenever they

begin implementing this procedure. In determining when to begin NSMP in

a particular school or school food authority, States should evaluate

their capabilities both in terms of computer technology and

availability of other technical resources. States will also need to

evaluate implementation on an on-going basis to determine if any

adjustments are needed and to provide support when start-up

difficulties occur. The Department is not establishing a specific

procedure for determining the readiness of school food authorities to

phase in NSMP or ANSMP. Rather, the Department believes State agencies

are in the best position to determine if a school food authority is

ready to begin the shift to NSMP or ANSMP and will be able to respond

to the wide range of situations that may occur and to concentrate on

achieving the goal. This approach frees State agencies from assuring

that a particular process is followed and allows them the flexibility

to invest their time and efforts as they judge best.

Monitoring Compliance With Updated Nutrition Standards

The Department also proposes to modify the monitoring requirements

to include compliance with the updated nutrition standards. Currently,

states monitor compliance with meal pattern components and quantities

on a per-meal basis. On the day of a review, the lunch service is

observed to ensure that all required food items are offered and, if

applicable, that children accept the minimum number of components

stipulated both under the standard meal service and the offer versus

serve option. Meal services that offer fewer than the five required

food items are disallowed for Federal reimbursement, as are meals for

which the child has not taken the minimum number of items under the

offer versus serve option. States also examine menus and production

records for the review period to ensure that all components were

available, and that sufficient quantities were offered. Thus, a direct

correlation exists between the meal service offered and the meals taken

on a given day and the allowable reimbursement for those meals.

Under NSMP and ANSMP, Federal reimbursement will continue to be

predicated upon similar factors. As noted earlier in this preamble,

under NSMP and ANSMP, schools will continue to offer a minimum number

of menu items, and children must accept a minimum number of items.

Meals which do not meet these requirements will not be eligible for

reimbursement. However, to allow school food authorities adequate time

to move towards full implementation of NSMP or ANSMP, school food

authorities that implement prior to School Year 1998-1999 will be

exempt from Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) Performance Standard 2 on

reimbursable meals containing the required food items/components in

Sec. 210.18(g)(2) if they are scheduled for an administrative review

prior to School Year 1998-1999.

Under this proposal, in addition to meeting the minimums for the

number of menu items, the reimbursable meals offered over a school week

must also collectively meet the updated nutrition standards

established. To determine compliance with the nutrition standards,

State agencies will need to closely examine school food authority's

nutrient analysis in the course of a review. While this is a much more

precise examination than in past practice, it continues the concept of

ensuring that the entire food service, not just an individual meal,

conforms to program requirements. State agencies must also observe the

meal service to determine if meals claimed for reimbursement contain

the appropriate number and type of menu items. The Department is

proposing to amend Sec. 210.19, Additional Responsibilities, to outline

review requirements for nutrition standards. The Department is

proposing to add the compliance requirements for the nutrition

standards to this section rather than to Sec. 210.18, Administrative

Reviews, in order to allow for operational experience and corrective

action prior to any imposition of fiscal action.

State Agency Responsibilities

The following summarizes the State agency's responsibilities under

the Department's proposal for general program management, including

taking fiscal action against school food authorities that consistently

refuse to meet program requirements. While State agencies would

probably combine a determination of how the nutrition standards and

NSMP/ANSMP are being met with the cyclical administrative review, the

Department is also proposing to provide State agencies with flexibility

to conduct these important evaluations at other times such as during

technical assistance visits or even as a separate, special assessment.

However, assessments of compliance with the nutrition standards must be

conducted no less frequently than administrative reviews.

As proposed by the Department, State agencies would assess the

nutrient analyses for the last completed school week. The purpose would

be to determine if the school food authority is applying the correct

methodology and is properly conducting the NSMP or ANSMP based on the

actual menu cycle including any substitutions. The State agency would

also review the menus and production records to determine if they

correspond to the information used to conduct NSMP or ANSMP.

Corrective Action

If it is indicated that the school food authority is not conducting

NSMP accurately or properly applying ANSMP, if the school week's meals,

as offered, do not comply with nutrition standards, or if the meal

observation identified a significant number of meals that did not meet

the definition of a reimbursable meal, the school food authority would

be required to take appropriate corrective action to achieve

compliance. However, at this time, no claim would be established if the

failure to comply was not intentional. (Intentional violations are

discussed later in this preamble.)

Pursuant to section 16(b) of the CNA, 42 U.S.C. 1785(b), the

Secretary of Agriculture is given authority to settle, adjust or waive

any claims under both the NSLA or the CNA if to do so would serve the

purposes of either Act. The Department recognizes that the transition

to NSMP and ANSMP will not in every instance be completed without

problems and unforeseen circumstances to be surmounted. The Department

expects State agencies to act quickly to rectify any problems found and

to monitor any corrective action undertaken. In the interests of

facilitating the transition to NSMP/ANSMP, the Secretary is proposing

to exercise his authority to settle, adjust and waive claims by not

requiring State agencies to disallow payment or collect overpayments

resulting from meals which do not meet the nutrition standards of the

regulations as long as State agencies are satisfied that such

deviations from the nutrition standards were not intentional and that

the school food authority is working towards successful completion of a

acceptable corrective action plan in a timely manner.

The Department stresses that this proposal does not establish

specific steps or time frames for corrective action. State agencies, as

a result of their evaluation of the school food authority, are in the

best position to establish corrective action goals and time frames,

working in partnership with local school food authorities. The

Department believes that State agencies and school food authorities

need flexibility in developing a corrective action plan and is,

therefore, providing such flexibility in this proposal. Further, in

recognition of the fact that timely and effective corrective action is

in the best interest of all, the Department intends to incorporate

review of this area into its management evaluation activities at the

State level.

The Department would like to once again emphasize that, under this

proposal, compliance with the updated nutrition standards is of

paramount importance. First, corrective action will be required if a

meal service does not meet the nutrition standards. The State agency

cannot overlook these shortcomings and must ensure that the meal

service is improved as stipulated in the corrective action plan.

Secondly, the State will be required to monitor the school's corrective

action efforts. In most cases, monitoring would include reviewing

production records, menus and computer analyses submitted by the school

food authority and providing any support indicated by such a review.

When a school food authority refuses to make a good faith effort to

comply with the terms of the corrective action plan, the State agency

would be required to establish a claim.

Exception to Claim Establishment

Under this proposal, State agencies would require corrective action

for meals not meeting the nutrition standards, but would receive

reimbursement for those meals. This procedure represents a significant

means of easing the transition to and operation of the updated

nutrition standards. Section 8 of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1757, and section

4(b)(1)(D) of the CNA, 42 U.S.C. 1773 (b)(1)(D), clearly provide that

reimbursement for meals served is available only for those meals that

meet Program requirements. Further, section 12(g) of the NSLA, 42

U.S.C. 1760(g), continues to provide for Federal criminal penalties for

certain intentional Program violations under either the NSLA or the

CNA. The Department is concerned that the corrective action provision

not be construed by State agencies or school food authorities as an

invitation to relax efforts to comply with the nutritional or

administrative review requirements of Secs. 210.10, 210.10a, 210.18 and

210.19. The institution of corrective action would not be a sufficient

remedy by itself in an instance in which a State agency determined that

school officials had intentionally failed to meet the nutrition

standards required by NSMP. In these situations, while the State agency

would initiate corrective action, it must also disallow claims for

reimbursement for the substandard meals and, in very severe cases,

consider referring the matter to the Department for criminal

prosecution.

While continued refusal to take corrective action could result in

loss of Federal funding, this provision is not intended to be punitive

when school food authorities are acting in good faith to comply with

the nutrition standards. The Department is far more concerned about

correcting these situations than it is with pursuing fiscal action. The

Department's foremost goal is to ensure that children are provided with

the most nutritious meals possible. Consequently, the emphasis in this

process is on corrective action and technical assistance. If school

food authorities implement appropriate corrective action and make

satisfactory progress toward compliance, no fiscal action would be

required.

Streamlined Administration

The Department is also proposing to streamline program

administration by allowing State agencies and school food authorities

flexibility in three important areas. The first provision would extend

the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) review cycle from 4 to 5 years. The

Department's experience with CRE indicates that a one-year extension in

the cycle would not adversely affect accountability, but it would

result in a 20 percent decrease in the number of reviews currently

conducted in any given year. While the exact reduction in burden would

vary from State to State, the Department expects this decrease would

provide the States with additional flexibility to enable them to

continue to improve school meals. Section 210.18(c) is proposed to be

amended to include this change.

The second provision eliminates the regulatory requirement for a

specific type of edit check on daily meal counts contained in

Sec. 210.8(a)(2) for schools where the most recent CRE review did not

identify meal counting and claiming problems. Currently, the edit check

provision requires that each school food authority compare each

school's daily meal count with data such as the number of children

eligible for free, reduced price or paid meals multiplied by an

attendance factor. This check is intended to ensure that monthly claims

for reimbursement are based on reasonable and accurate counts of meals

offered on any day of operation to eligible children.

The Department believes, however, that school food authorities that

have demonstrated, through the CRE review, the accuracy of their meal

counts and claims should be provided an optional approach to specific

edit checks. This proposal would establish a system whereby these

school food authorities could develop and implement their own systems

of internal controls designed to ensure the accuracy of claims for

reimbursement. This system would then be submitted to the State agency

for review. If the State agency's review determined that the proposed

method constituted an accurate internal control, no further action

would be required, and the school food authority's own proposed

internal controls would remain in effect. However, if the State agency

concluded that the suggested system of internal controls was

inadequate, the school food authority would be required to modify its

procedures accordingly. In addition, if during the course of a CRE

review or other oversight activity of the school food authority, it is

determined that the internal controls were ineffective, the specific,

regulatory edit check would replace their system until a future

regularly scheduled CRE review indicates there are no meal count

problems.

This proposal would virtually eliminate the requirement for a

specific edit check for school food authorities with accurate meal

counts and claims measured by the CRE review and replace it with a more

flexible procedure to allow these school food authorities to design and

implement a system that is streamlined for their particular

circumstances. However, this proposal also maintains the necessary

specificity of an edit check for school food authorities found to have

meal counting and claiming violations. Further it provides for State

agency oversight of accountability procedures and a ready mechanism, if

needed, to substitute a Federally-defined procedure to ensure accurate

claims for reimbursement. The Department believes that program

integrity must be maintained by requiring specific criteria when review

results indicate problems or failure of the school food authority's

alternative system. Section 210.8(a)(2) and (a)(3) would be modified to

reflect these proposed changes.

The Department is especially interested in receiving comments on

this provision. Commenters should address the flexibility this proposed

provision allows well-managed school food authorities and any

implementation issues this poses. In addition, the Department would be

interested in receiving alternative proposals that would accomplish the

desired balance between local flexibility and sound accountability.

The third area that the Department is addressing to reduce

paperwork at the school food authority level is the requirement in

Sec. 210.15(b)(4) that distinct records be maintained to document the

nonprofit status of the school food service. These records are the

accounts which any enterprise needs to maintain in the normal course of

conducting business (i.e., receipts, costs, etc.). Therefore, since

these kinds of records are a necessary part of a school food

authority's own accountability system and, in many cases, are required

by State laws, the Department does not consider it necessary for the

program regulations to mandate this recordkeeping requirement. It is

important to emphasize that the school food authority would still have

to be operated on a nonprofit basis. This proposal is only amending the

requirements for documentation of nonprofitability. This proposal would

amend Sec. 210.14(c) and Sec. 210.15(b) to include this change. In the

event that a question or dispute arises in connection with whether a

nonprofit school food service has been properly operated, the burden of

proof still be upon the school food authority to demonstrate that the

school food service is being operated on a nonprofit basis.

Length of Meal Periods

As noted above, many commenters expressed concern that children be

given sufficient time in which to eat, particularly if larger portion

sizes are to be served. The Department also recognizes the need to

balance the time for academics with the time to receive and eat school

meals, especially lunch. Although the Department has no authority in

this area, school food service directors are strongly encouraged to

work with other school officials to ensure that adequate meal service

times and facilities are provided. Likewise, the Department will

continue to work with DOEd to solicit support in the education

community to ensure that educators and school administrators understand

the importance of students having adequate time to eat.

To indicate its concern in this area, the Department is proposing,

in Sec. 210.10(i), to recommend that school food authorities make every

effort to provide adequate meal service times and periods to ensure

that students can effectively participate in the school lunch program.

Changes to the School Breakfast Program Nutritional Requirements

In order to facilitate uniform implementation, the Department is

also proposing to amend the nutritional requirements of the SBP to

parallel the changes made to the nutritional requirements of the NSLP.

The current Sec. 220.8 would be redesignated as Sec. 220.8a to retain

the requirements that would be in effect until implementation of the

updated nutrition standards on July 1, 1998, while Sec. 220.8 would

contain provisions on nutrition standards, NSMP and ANSMP for the SBP.

The major differences for the SBP are that fewer calories are

required and one-fourth of the RDA are to be met. A new guide would be

incorporated into Sec. 220.8 to indicate the nutrition standards

required for the SBP. In addition, separate analyses for SBP and NSLP

would be required to meet the different nutrition standards for each

program. As previously discussed, a reimbursable meal under the SBP

will not be required to contain an entree.

Effective Dates

As discussed earlier, this proposal requires school food

authorities to serve meals through the use of NSMP or ANSMP and be in

compliance with updated nutrition standards by School Year 1998-1999

which begins on July 1, 1998. The Department believes this schedule

provides sufficient time to enable States to develop appropriate

technical assistance and guidance materials, to allow local food

service staff to become familiar with the updated requirements and to

make appropriate changes in meals. There would be no mandate for school

food authorities to implement the required changes prior to July 1,

1998. In the interest of promoting children's long-term health through

diet, the Department encourages State agencies to work with school food

authorities to implement as soon as possible and, in fact, as discussed

earlier, expects State agencies to approve plans for early

implementation. The Department considers that early implementation will

also provide both State agencies and school food authorities with

valuable experience before mandatory implementation.

To encourage early implementation, compliance activities described

above will not take effect before School Year 1998-1999. In the interim

period, reviews and oversight activities that focus on the food service

portion of program operations will provide excellent opportunities for

technical assistance and for State agencies to assess preparation for

full implementation. All other changes in this rule, including the

paperwork reductions and streamlined administration methods, could be

implemented 30 days after final publication of the final rule.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 210

Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs,

Grants programs--social programs, National School Lunch Program,

Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus

agricultural commodities.

7 CFR Part 220

Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--social

programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School

Breakfast Program.

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 are proposed to be amended as

follows:

PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 is revised to read as

follows:

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

2. In Sec. 210.2:

a. The definition of ``Food component'' is amended by adding the

words ``under Sec. 210.10a'' at the end of the sentence;

b. The definition of ``Food item'' is amended by adding the words

``under Sec. 210.10a'' at the end of the sentence;

c. The definition of ``Lunch'' is revised;

d. A new definition of ``Menu item'' is added in alphabetical

order;

e. A new definition of ``Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning'' is added in alphabetical order;

f. The definition of ``Reimbursement'' is amended by adding the

words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable,'' after

``Sec. 210.10''; and

g. A new definition of ``School Week'' is added in alphabetical

order.

The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec. 210.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Lunch means a meal which meets the nutrient and calorie levels

designated in Sec. 210.10 or the school lunch pattern for specified

age/grade groups as designated in Sec. 210.10a.

Menu item means, under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, any single food or combination of

foods. All menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal

may be considered as contributing towards meeting the nutrition

standards provided in Sec. 210.10(a), except for those foods that are

considered as foods of minimal nutritional value as provided for in

Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not offered as part of a menu item in a

reimbursable meal. For the purposes of a reimbursable lunch, a minimum

of three menu items must be offered, one of which must be an entree (a

combination of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main

course) and one must be fluid milk. For the purposes of a reimbursable

lunch, one of the selected menu items must be an entree. Under the

offer versus serve option, three menu items must be offered and an

entree and one other menu item must be selected.

* * * * *

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning means a way to develop meals which is based on the analysis of

nutrients which would require school lunches, when averaged over a

school week, to meet specific levels for a set of key nutrients and

calories rather than a specific set of food categories. Analysis of the

menu items and foods shall be based on averages that will be weighted

by production quantities as offered to the students. Such analysis is

normally done by a school or a school food authority. However, for the

purposes of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, menu planning and

analysis are completed by other entities and shall incorporate the

production quantities needed to accommodate the specific service

requirements of a particular school or school food authority.

* * * * *

School week means the period of time used as the basis for

determining nutrient levels of the menu and for conducting Nutrient

Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for

lunches. The period shall be a minimum of three days and a maximum of

seven days. Weeks in which school lunches are offered less than three

times shall be combined with either the previous or the coming week.

* * * * *

Sec. 210.4 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 210.4, paragraph (b)(3) introductory text is amended by

removing the words ``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in

their place the words ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''.

Sec. 210.7 [Amended]

4. In Sec. 210.7:

a. Paragraph (c)(1)(v) is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10(b) of this part'' and adding in its place the words

``Sec. 210.10(a) or Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable,''; and

b. Paragraph (d) is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in its place the

reference ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''.

5. In Sec. 210.8:

a. The third sentence of paragraph (a)(2) is removed and new

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) are added;

b. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised;

c. The first sentence of paragraph (a)(4) is amended by removing

the words ``review process described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of

this section'' and adding in their place the words ``the internal

controls used by schools in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this

section or the claims review process used by schools in accordance with

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3) of this section''; and

d. The first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i) is amended by removing

the reference to ``paragraph (a)(2)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``paragraph (a)(3)'' and by adding at the end of the

sentence the words ``or the internal controls used by schools in

accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section''.

The revision and additions reads as follows:

210.8 Claims for reimbursement.

(a) Internal controls. * * *

(2) School food authority claims review process. * * *

(i) Any school food authority that was found by its most recent

administrative review conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18, to have

no meal counting and claiming violations may:

(A) Develop internal control procedures that ensure accurate meal

counts. The school food authority shall submit any internal controls

developed in accordance with this paragraph to the State agency for

approval and, in the absence of specific disapproval from the State

agency, shall implement such internal controls. The State agency shall

establish procedures to promptly notify school food authorities of any

modifications needed to their proposed internal controls or of denial

of unacceptable submissions. If the State agency disapproves the

proposed internal controls of any school food authority, it reserves

the right to require the school food authority to comply with the

provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or

(B) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this

section.

(ii) Any school food authority that was identified in the most

recent administrative review conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18,

or in any other oversight activity, as having meal counting and

claiming violations shall comply with the requirements in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section.

(3) Edit checks. (i) The following procedure shall be followed for

school food authorities identified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this

section, by other school food authorities at State agency option, or,

at their own option, by school food authorities identified in paragraph

(a)(2)(i) of this section: The school food authority shall compare each

school's daily counts of free, reduced price and paid lunches against

the product of the number of children in that school currently eligible

for free, reduced price and paid lunches, respectively, times an

attendance factor.

(ii) School food authorities that are identified in subsequent

administrative reviews conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18 as not

having meal counting and claiming violations and that are correctly

complying with the procedures in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section

have the option of developing internal controls in accordance with

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

* * * * *

Sec. 210.9 [Amended]

6. In Sec. 210.9:

a. Paragraph (b)(5) is amended by adding the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'' at the end of the paragraph

before the semicolon;

b. Paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in its place

the reference ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''; and

c. Paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place the reference ``Sec. 210.10a''.

Sec. 210.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 210.10a]

7. Section 210.10 is redesignated as Sec. 210.10a.

8. A new section 210.10 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 210.10 Nutrition standards for lunches and menu planning systems.

(a) Nutrition standards for reimbursable lunches. School food

authorities shall ensure that participating schools provide nutritious

and well-balanced meals to children based on the nutrition standards

provided in this section or, if applicable, for very young children and

meal supplements, the appropriate provisions of Sec. 210.10a. For the

purposes of this section, the nutrition standards are:

(1) Provision of one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowances

(RDA) of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C to the

applicable age groups in accordance with the Minimum Nutrient Levels

for School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section;

(2) Provision of the lunchtime energy allowances for children based

on the four age groups provided for in the Minimum Nutrient Levels for

School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4) of this section;

(3) The applicable 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are:

(i) Eat a variety of foods;

(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of calories;

(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of calories;

(iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;

(v) Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain

products; and

(vi) Use salt and sodium in moderation; and

(4) The following measures of compliance with the 1990 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans:

(i) A limit on the percent of calories from total fat to 30 percent

based on the actual number of calories offered;

(ii) A limit on the percent of calories from saturated fat to less

than 10 percent based on the actual number of calories offered;

(iii) A reduction of the levels of sodium and cholesterol; and

(iv) An increase in the level of dietary fiber.

(b) General requirements for school lunches. (1) In order to

qualify for reimbursement, lunches, as offered by participating

schools, shall, at a minimum, meet the nutrition standards provided in

paragraph (a) of this section when averaged over each school week.

Except as otherwise provided herein, school food authorities shall

ensure that sufficient quantities menu items and foods are planned and

produced to meet, at a minimum, the nutrition standards in paragraph

(a) of this section.

(2) School food authorities shall ensure that each lunch is priced

as a unit and that lunches are planned and produced on the basis of

participation trends, with the objective of providing one reimbursable

lunch per child per day. Any excess lunches that are produced may be

offered, but shall not be claimed for general or special cash

assistance provided under Sec. 210.4.

(c) Requirements for meals served to infants and very young

children (birth to 24 months of age). Meals for infants from birth to 2

years of age shall meet the requirements in Sec. 210.10a (a), (c), (d)

and (h).

(d) Specific nutrient levels for children age 2. Schools with

children age 2 who participate in the program shall ensure that the

nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section are met except

that, such schools have the option of either using the RDA and calorie

levels for children ages 3-6 in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for

School Lunches, in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section, or developing

separate nutrient levels for this age group. The methodology for

determining such levels will be available in menu planning guidance

material provided by FNS.

(e) Requirements for meals for children ages 3-17--(1) General. In

order to receive reimbursement, school food authorities shall ensure

that participating schools offer lunches which meet the nutrition

standards provided in paragraph (a) of this section to children age

three and over.

(2) Nutrient levels. The nutrients of reimbursable lunches shall,

as offered and as averaged over each school week, meet the requirements

in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches, in paragraph

(e)(4)(i) of this section for children of the appropriate age group.

(3) Records. Production, menu and nutritional analysis records

shall be maintained by schools to demonstrate that lunches meet, when

averaged over each school week, the nutrition standards provided in

paragraph (a) of this section and the nutrient levels for children of

each age group in the table Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches

in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section.

(4) Specific nutrient levels for children ages 3-17. (i) Schools

that are able to offer meals to children based on nutrient levels

reflecting one of the four age levels in the table in this paragraph

should do so. Schools that cannot offer meals to children on the basis

of the age levels in the table in this paragraph shall, under Nutrient

Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,

adjust the established levels following guidance provided by FNS, or,

if only one age is outside the established level, use the levels

provided in the table for the majority of children. For example, a

school has grades one through five, but if some first graders are six,

the levels for Group II would be used as the majority of students are

in this age group. Schools shall ensure that lunches are offered with

the objective of providing the per lunch minimums for each age level as

specified in the following table:

Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Nutrients and energy ages 3-6 ages 7-10 ages 11-13 ages 14-17

allowances years years years years

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy allowance/

Calories........... 558 667 783 846

Total Fat (as a

percent of actual

total food energy). (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Total Saturated Fat

(as a percent of

actual total food

energy)............ (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)

RDA for protein (g). 7.3 9.3 15.0 16.7

RDA for calcium (mg) 267 267 400 400

RDA for iron (mg)... 3.3 3.3 4.5 4.5

RDA for vitamin A

(RE)............... 158 233 300 300

RDA for vitamin C

(mg)............... 14.6 15.0 16.7 19.2

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Less than or equal to 30% of actual calories offered.

\2\Less than 10% of actual calories offered.

(ii) A reimbursable lunch shall include a minimum of three menu

items as defined in Sec. 210.2; one menu item shall be an entree and

one shall be fluid milk as a beverage. An entree may be a combination

of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main course. All

menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal may be

considered as contributing towards meeting the nutrition standards in

paragraph (a) of this section, except for those foods that are

considered foods of minimal nutritional value as provided for in

Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not offered as part of a menu item in a

reimbursable meal. Reimbursable lunches, as offered, shall meet the

established nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section when

averaged over a school week.

(f) Milk requirement for children ages 2-17. Schools shall comply

with the requirements for offering milk as provided for in

Sec. 210.10a(d)(1).

(g) Offer versus serve. Each participating school shall offer its

students at least three menu items as required by paragraph (e)(4)(ii)

of this section. Under offer versus serve, senior high students are

required to take at least two of the three menu items offered; one menu

item selected must be an entree. At the discretion of the school food

authority, students below the senior high level may also participate in

offer versus serve. The price of a reimbursable lunch shall not be

affected if a student declines a menu item or accepts smaller portions.

State educational agencies shall define ``senior high.''

(h) Choice. To provide variety and to encourage consumption and

participation, schools should, whenever possible, offer a selection of

menu items, foods and types of milk from which children may make

choices. When a school offers a selection of more than one type of

lunch or when it offers a variety of menu items, foods and milk for

choice as a reimbursable lunch, the school shall offer all children the

same selection regardless of whether the children are eligible for free

or reduced price lunches or pay the school food authority's designated

full price. The school may establish different unit prices for each

type of lunch offered provided that the benefits made available to

children eligible for free or reduced price lunches are not affected.

(i) Lunch period. At or about mid-day schools shall offer lunches

which meet the requirements of this section during a period designated

as the lunch period by the school food authority. Such lunch periods

shall occur between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., unless otherwise exempted by

FNS. With state approval, schools that serve children 1-5 years old are

encouraged to divide the service of the meal into two distinct service

periods. Such schools may divide the quantities and/or menu items or

foods offered between these service periods in any combination that

they choose. Schools are also encouraged to provide an adequate number

of lunch periods of sufficient length to ensure that all students have

an opportunity to be served and have ample time to consume their meals.

(j) Exceptions. Lunches claimed for reimbursement shall meet the

school lunch requirements specified in this section. However, lunches

offered which accommodate the exceptions and variations authorized

under Sec. 210.10a(i) are also reimbursable.

(k) Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for children age 2-17. In order

to assure that school lunches meet the nutrition standards provided in

paragraph (a) of this section, nutrient analysis shall be conducted on

all menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal,

except for those foods that are considered as foods of minimal

nutritional value as provided for in Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not

offered as part of a menu item in a reimbursable meal. Such analysis

shall be over the course of each school week. The school food authority

shall either independently conduct Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or

shall request that the State agency allow Assisted Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning.

(l) The National Nutrient Database and software specifications. (i)

Nutrient analysis shall be based on information provided in the

National Nutrient Database for Child Nutrition Programs. This database

shall be incorporated into software used to conduct nutrient analysis.

Upon request, FNS will provide information about the database to

software companies that wish to develop school food service software

systems.

(ii) Any software used to conduct nutrient analysis shall be

evaluated by FNS and, as submitted, been determined to meet the minimum

requirements established by FNS. However, such review does not

constitute endorsement by FNS or USDA. Such software shall provide the

capability to perform all functions required after the basic data has

been entered including calculation of weighted averages as required by

paragraph (k)(2) of this section.

(2) Determination of weighted averages. (i) Menu items and foods

offered as part of a reimbursable meal shall be analyzed based on

portion sizes and projected serving amounts and shall be weighted based

on their proportionate contribution to the meals. Therefore, menu items

or foods more frequently selected will contribute more nutrients than

menu items or foods which are less frequently selected. Such weighting

shall be done in accordance with guidance issued by FNS as well as that

provided by the software used.

(ii) An analysis of all menu items and foods offered in the menu

over each school week shall be computed for calories and for each of

the following nutrients: protein; vitamin A; vitamin C; iron; calcium;

total fat; saturated fat; and sodium. The analysis shall also include

the dietary components of cholesterol and dietary fiber.

(3) Comparing average daily levels. Once the appropriate procedures

of paragraph (k)(2) of this section have been completed, the results

shall be compared to the appropriate age group level for each nutrient

and for calories in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for School

Lunch, in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section. In addition, comparisons

shall be made to the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (a) of

this section in order to determine the degree of conformity.

(4) Adjustments based on students' selections. The results obtained

under paragraph (k)(2) of this section shall be used to adjust future

menu cycles to accurately reflect production and student selections.

Menus may require further analysis and comparison, depending on the

results obtained in paragraph (k)(3) of this section when production

and selection patterns change. The school food authority may need to

consider modifications to the menu items and foods offered based on

student selections as well as modifications to recipes and other

specifications to ensure that the nutrition standards provided in

paragraph (a) of this section are met.

(5) Standardized recipes. Under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,

standardized recipes shall be developed and followed. A standardized

recipe is one that was tested to provide an established yield and

quantity through the use of ingredients that remain constant in both

measurement and preparation methods. USDA/FNS standardized recipes are

included in the National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition

Programs. In addition, local standardized recipes used by school food

authorities shall be analyzed for their calories, nutrients and dietary

components and added to the local database by that school food

authority in accordance with paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section.

(6) Processed foods. Unless already included in the National

Nutrient Database, the calorie amounts, nutrients and dietary

components, in accordance with paragraph (k)(3) of this section, of

purchased processed foods and menu items used by the school food

authority shall be obtained by the school food authority or State

agency and incorporated into the database at the local level in

accordance with FNS guidance.

(7) Substitutions. If the need for serving a substitute food(s) or

menu item(s) occurs at least two weeks prior to serving the planned

menu, the revised menu shall be reanalyzed based on the changes. If the

need for serving a substitute food(s) or menu item(s) occurs two weeks

or less prior to serving the planned menu, no reanalysis is required.

However, to the extent possible, substitutions should be made using

similar foods.

(l) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) For school food

authorities without the capability to conduct Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning, as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, menu cycles

developed by other sources may be used. Such sources may include but

are not limited to the State agency, other school food authorities,

consultants, or food service management companies.

(2) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning shall establish menu

cycles that have been developed in accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)

through (k)(6) of this section as well as local food preferences and

local food service operations. These menu cycles shall incorporate the

nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section and the Minimum

Nutrient Levels for School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this

section. In addition to the menu cycle, recipes, food product

specifications and preparation techniques shall also be developed and

provided by the entity furnishing Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning to ensure that the menu items and foods offered conform to the

nutrient analysis determinations of the menu cycle.

(3) If a school food authority requests Assisted Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning, the State agency shall determine if it is warranted. At

the inception of any approved use of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning, the State agency shall approve the initial menu cycle,

recipes, and other specifications to determine that all required

elements for correct nutrient analysis are incorporated. The State

agency shall also, upon request, provide assistance with implementation

of the chosen system.

(4) After initial service under the Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning menu cycle, the nutrient analysis shall be reassessed in

accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this section and appropriate

adjustments made.

(5) Under Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, the school food

authority retains final responsibility for ensuring that all nutrition

standards established in paragraph (a) of this section are met.

(m) Compliance with the nutrition standards. If the analysis

conducted in accordance with paragraphs (k) or (l) of this section

shows that the menus offered are not meeting the nutrition standards in

paragraph (a) of this section, actions, including technical assistance

and training, shall be taken by the State agency, school food

authority, or school, as appropriate, to ensure that the lunches

offered to children comply with the nutrition standards established by

paragraph (a) of this section.

(n) Nutrition disclosure. School food authorities are encouraged to

make information available indicating efforts to meet the nutrition

standards in paragraph (a) of this section, such as publicizing the

results of the nutrient analysis of the school week menu cycle.

(o) Supplemental food. Eligible schools operating after school care

programs may be reimbursed for one meal supplement offered to an

eligible child (as defined in Sec. 210.2) per day. Meal supplements

shall conform to the provisions set forth in Sec. 210.10a(j).

(p) Implementation of the nutrition standards and Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) No later

than School Year 1998-99, school food authorities shall ensure that

lunches offered to children ages 2 and above by participating schools

meet the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Further, no later than School Year 1998-99, school food

authorities shall ensure that Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, or

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, where applicable, is applied

to lunches offered by participating schools.

(3) Schools and/or school food authorities may begin to implement

any or all of the provisions of this section before School Year 1998-99

with prior approval of the State agency. In these situations, State

agencies shall evaluate the ability of school food authorities to begin

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning and provide start-up training and facilitate initial

implementation. However, school food authorities shall not be subject

to the provisions of Sec. 210.19(a) for failure to comply with the

nutrition standards established by paragraph (a) of this section or

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning established by paragraphs (k) and (l) of this section until

School Year 1998-99. In addition, school food authorities that

implement Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning prior to School Year 1998-99 shall be exempt from

Sec. 210.18(g)(2) until required implementation in School Year 1998-99.

(4) State agencies shall monitor implementation of Nutrient

Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning at

the school food authority level in order to ensure proper compliance.

Such monitoring shall include the State agency observation of the meal

service to determine if meals claimed for reimbursement contain the

appropriate number and type of menu items. FNS may review State agency

evaluation criteria and monitoring procedures as part of any management

evaluation review conducted during the implementation period.

(5) Beginning with School Year 1998-99, State agencies shall

monitor compliance by school food authorities with the nutrition

standards in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with the

requirements of Sec. 210.19(a).

9. In the newly redesignated Sec. 210.10a:

a. The section heading is revised; and

b. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the ``Milk''

description under ``Food Components and Food Items''.

The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 210.10a Lunch components and quantities for the meal pattern,

lunches for very young children and meal supplements.

* * * * *

(c) Minimum required lunch quantities. * * *

School Lunch Pattern-per Lunch Minimums

Food Components and Food Items

Milk (as a beverage):

Fluid whole milk and fluid unflavored lowfat milk must be offered;

(Flavored fluid milk, skim milk or buttermilk optional)

*****

* * * * *

10. In 210.14, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. Sec. 210.14 Resource management.

* * * * *

(c) Financial assurances. The school food authority shall meet the

requirements of the State agency for compliance with Sec. 210.19(a)

including any separation of records of nonprofit school food service

from records of any other food service which may be operated by the

school food authority as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.

* * * * *

11. In 210.15:

a. Paragraph (b)(2) is revised;

b. Paragraph (b)(3) is amended by removing the reference to

``210.10(b) of this part'' and adding in its place the words

``Sec. 210.10(a) or Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable''; and

c. Paragraph (b)(4) is removed and paragraph (b)(5) is redesignated

as paragraph (b)(4).

The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 210.15 Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

(b) Recordkeeping summary. * * *

(2) Production and menu records as required under Sec. 210.10a and

production, menu and nutrition analysis records as required under

Sec. 210.10, whichever is applicable.

* * * * *

12. In 210.16:

a. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by adding the words ``developed in

accordance with the provisions of Sec. 210.10 or Sec. 210.10a,

whichever is applicable,'' after the words ``21-day cycle menu''

whenever they appear; and

b. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 210.16 Food service management companies.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) No payment is to be made for meals that are spoiled or

unwholesome at time of delivery, do not meet detailed specifications as

developed by the school food authority for each food component/menu

item specified in Sec. 210.10 or 210.10a, whichever is applicable, or

do not otherwise meet the requirements of the contract. * * *

* * * * *

Sec. 210.18 [Amended]

13. In 210.18:

a. Paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the

number ``4'' in the phrase ``4-year review cycle'' wherever it appears

and adding in its place the number ``5'';

b. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing

the number ``4'' in the phrase ``4-year review cycle'' and adding in

its place the number ``5'' and by removing the number ``5'' in the

phrase ``every 5 years'' and adding in its place the number ``6'';

c. Paragraph (c)(2) is amended by removing the number ``4'' in the

phrase ``4-year cycle'' and adding in its place the number ``5'';

d. Paragraph (c)(3) is amended by removing the number ``5'' in the

phrase ``5-year review interval'' and adding the number ``6'' in its

place;

e. Paragraph (d)(3) is amended by removing the reference to

``210.19(a)(4)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``210.19(a)(5)''; and

f. Paragraph (h)(2) is amended by removing the reference

``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 210.10a''.

14. In 210.19:

a. Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a)(2) through (a)(6), respectively, and a new paragraph (a)(1) is

added;

b. Newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2) is revised;

c. The last sentence in newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3) is

revised;

d. The number ``4'' in the second sentence of newly redesignated

paragraph (a)(6) is removed and the number ``5'' is added in its place;

e. The second sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text is

revised;

f. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (c)(1);

g. The reference to ``Sec. 210.10'' in paragraph (c)(6)(i) is

removed and a reference to ``Sec. 210.10a'' is added in its place; and

h. The word ``or'' is removed at the end of paragraph (c)(6)(i),

the period at the end of paragraph (c)(6)(ii) is removed and ``; or''

is added in its place, and a new paragraph (c)(6)(iii) is added.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 210.19 Additional responsibilities.

(a) General Program management. * * *

(1) Compliance with nutrition standards. At a minimum, beginning

with School Year 1998-99, school food authorities shall meet the

nutrition standards established in Sec. 210.10(a) for reimbursable

meals.

(i) Beginning with School Year 1998-99, State agencies shall

evaluate compliance with the established nutrition standards over a

school week. At a minimum, these evaluations shall be conducted once

every 5 years and may be conducted at the same time a school food

authority is scheduled for an administrative review in accordance with

Sec. 210.18. State agencies may also conduct these evaluations in

conjunction with technical assistance visits, other reviews, or

separately. The State agency shall assess the nutrient analysis for the

last completed school week to determine if the school food authority is

applying the methodology provided in Sec. 210.10 (k) or (l), as

appropriate. Part of this assessment shall be an independent review of

menus and production records to determine if they correspond to the

analysis conducted by the school food authority and if the menu, as

offered, over a school week, corresponds to the nutrition standards set

forth in Sec. 210.10(a).

(ii) If the menu for the school week fails to meet any of the

nutrition standards set forth in Sec. 210.10(a), the school food

authority shall develop, with the assistance and concurrence of the

State agency, a corrective action plan designed to rectify those

deficiencies. The State agency shall monitor the school food

authority's execution of the plan to ensure that the terms of the

corrective action plan are met.

(iii) If a school food authority fails to meet the terms of the

corrective action plan, the State agency shall determine if the school

food authority is working towards compliance in good faith and, if so,

may renegotiate the corrective action plan, if warranted. However, if

the school food authority has not been acting in good faith to meet the

terms of the corrective action plan and refuses to renegotiate the

plan, the State agency shall determine if a disallowance of

reimbursement funds as authorized under paragraph (c) of this section

is warranted.

(2) Assurance of compliance for finances. Each State agency shall

ensure that school food authorities comply with the requirements to

account for all revenues and expenditures of their nonprofit school

food service. School food authorities shall meet the requirements for

the allowability of nonprofit school food service expenditures in

accordance with this part and, as applicable, 7 CFR part 3015. The

State agency shall ensure compliance with the requirements to limit net

cash resources and shall provide for approval of net cash resources in

excess of three months' average expenditures. Each State agency shall

monitor, through review or audit or by other means, the net cash

resources of the nonprofit school food service in each school food

authority participating in the Program. In the event that net cash

resources exceed 3 months' average expenditures for the school food

authority's nonprofit school food service or such other amount as may

be approved in accordance with this paragraph, the State agency may

require the school food authority to reduce the price children are

charged for lunches, improve food quality or take other action designed

to improve the nonprofit school food service. In the absence of any

such action, the State agency shall make adjustments in the rate of

reimbursement under the Program.

(3) Improved management practices. * * * If a substantial number of

children who routinely and over a period of time do not favorably

accept a particular menu item; return foods; or choose less than all

food items/components or foods and menu items as authorized under

Sec. 210.10(e)(4)(ii) or Sec. 210.10a(e), poor acceptance of certain

menus may be indicated.

* * * * *

(c) Fiscal action. * * * State agencies shall take fiscal action

against school food authorities for Claims for Reimbursement that are

not properly payable under this part including, if warranted, the

disallowance of funds for failure to take corrective action in

accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. * * *

(1) Definition. * * * Fiscal action also includes disallowance of

funds for failure to take corrective action in accordance with

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

* * * * *

(6) Exceptions. * * *

(iii) When any review or audit reveals that a school food

authority's failure to meet the nutrition standards of Sec. 210.10 is

unintentional and the school food authority is meeting the requirements

of a corrective plan developed and agreed to under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)

of this section.

* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 210 [Amended]

15. In Appendix A to part 210, Alternate Foods for Meals, under

Enriched Macaroni Products with Fortified Protein, the first sentence

of paragraph 1(a) is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 210.10a''.

16. In Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, under Cheese

Alternate Products,

a. Introductory paragraph 1 is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 210.10a''; and

b. Paragraph 1(d) is amended by removing the reference to

``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 210.10a''.

17. In Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, under Vegetable

Protein Products:

a. Introductory paragraph 1 is amended by removing the reference to

``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to ``210.10a'';

b. The second sentence of paragraph 1(d) is amended by removing the

reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``210.10a'' ;

c. The first sentence of paragraph 1(e) is amended by removing the

reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``210.10a'' ; and

d. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 210.10a''.

18. In Appendix C to Part 210, Child Nutrition Labeling Program:

a. Paragraph 2(a) is amended by removing the reference to

``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to ``210.10a'';

b. The first sentence of paragraph 3(c)(2) is amended by removing

the reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in

its place a reference to ``220.8a''; and

c. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is amended by removing the

reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to

``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in

its place a reference to ``220.8a''.

PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.

2. In 220.2:

a. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words ``or Sec. 220.8a,

whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to ``Sec. 220.8'';

c. Paragraph (m), previously reserved, is added;

d. A new paragraph (p-1) is added;

e. Paragraph (t) is amended by adding the words ``or Sec. 220.8a,

whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to ``Sec. 220.8''; and

f. A new paragraph (w-1) is added.

The additions read as follows:

Sec. 220.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(m) Menu item means, under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, any single food or

combination of foods. All menu items or foods offered as part of the

reimbursable meal may be considered as contributing towards meeting the

nutrition standards provided in Sec. 220.8(b), except for those foods

that are considered as foods of minimal nutritional value as provided

for in Sec. 220.2(i-1) which are not offered as part of a menu item in

a reimbursable meal. For the purposes of a reimbursable meal, a minimum

of three menu items must be offered, one of which must be an entree (a

combination of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main

course) and one must be fluid milk.

* * * * *

(p-1) Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard

Menu Planning means a way to develop meals based on the analysis of

nutrients which would require school breakfasts, when averaged over a

school week, to meet specific levels for a set of key nutrients and

calories rather than a specific set of food categories. Analysis of the

menu items and foods shall be based on averages that will be weighted

by production quantities as offered to the students. Such analysis is

normally done by a school or a school food authority. However, for the

purposes of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, menu planning and

analysis is completed by other entities and shall incorporate the

production quantities needed to accommodate the specific service

requirements of a particular school or school food authority.

* * * * *

(w-1) School week means the period of time used as the basis for

determining nutrient levels of the menu and for conducting Nutrient

Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for

breakfasts. The period week shall be a minimum of three days and a

maximum of seven days. Weeks in which breakfasts are offered less than

three times shall be combined with either the previous or the coming

week.

* * * * *

Sec. 220.7 [Amended]

3. In 220.7, paragraph (e)(2) is amended by adding the words ``or

Sec. 220.8a, whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to

``Sec. 220.8''.

Sec. 220.8 [Redesignated as Sec. 220.8A]

4. Section 220.8 is redesignated as Sec. 220.8a and a new

Sec. 220.8 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 220.8 Nutrition standards for breakfast and menu planning

systems.

(a) Breakfasts for very young children. Meals for infants and very

young children (ages birth to 24 months) who are participating in the

Program shall meet the requirements in Sec. 220.8a(a), (b) and (c).

(b) Nutrition standards for breakfasts for children age 2 and over.

School food authorities shall ensure that participating schools provide

nutritious and well-balanced breakfasts to children age 2 and over

based on the nutrition standards provided in this section. For the

purposes of this section, the nutrition standards are:

(1) Provision of one-fourth of the Recommended Dietary Allowances

(RDA) of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C to the

applicable age groups in accordance with the Minimum Nutrient Levels

for School Breakfasts in paragraph (e)(1) of this section;

(2) Provision of the breakfast energy allowances for children in

accordance with the age groups in the Minimum Nutrient Levels for

School Breakfasts in paragraph (e)(1) of this section;

(3) The applicable 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are:

(i) Eat a variety of foods;

(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of calories;

(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of calories;

(iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;

(v) Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain

products; and

(vi) Use salt and sodium in moderation; and

(4) The following measures of compliance with the 1990 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans:

(i) A limit on the percent of calories from total fat to 30 percent

based on the actual number of calories offered;

(ii) A limit on the percent of calories from saturated fat to less

than 10 percent based on the actual number of calories offered;

(iii) A reduction of the levels of sodium and cholesterol; and

(iv) An increase in the level of dietary fiber.

(c) General requirements for school breakfasts for children age 2

and over. (1) In order to qualify for reimbursement, breakfasts, as

offered by participating schools, shall, at a minimum, meet the

nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section when averaged over

each school week.

(2) School food authorities shall ensure that each breakfast is

priced as a unit. Except as otherwise provided herein, school food

authorities shall ensure that sufficient quantities of menu items and

foods are planned and produced so that breakfasts meet, at a minimum,

the nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section.

(3) School food authorities shall ensure that breakfasts are

planned and produced on the basis of participation trends, with the

objective of providing one reimbursable breakfast per child per day.

Any excess breakfasts that are produced may be offered, but shall not

be claimed for reimbursement under Sec. 220.9.

(d) Nutritional criteria for breakfasts for children age 2 and

over. In order to receive reimbursement, school food authorities shall

ensure that participating schools provide breakfasts to children age

two and over in accordance with the nutrition standards in paragraph

(b) of this section.

(1) The nutrients of breakfasts shall, when averaged over each

school week, meet the requirements in the table Minimum Nutrient Levels

for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for children

of each age group.

(2) Production, menu and nutritional analysis records shall be

maintained by schools to demonstrate that breakfasts as offered meet

the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (b) of this section and

the nutrient levels for children of each age group in the table,

Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section.

(3) Schools with children age 2 who participate in the program

shall ensure that the nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this

section are met except that, such schools have the option of either

using the RDA and calorie levels for children ages 3-6 in the table,

Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of

this section or developing separate requirements for this age group.

The methodology for determining such levels will be available in menu

planning guidance material provided by FNS.

(e) Requirements for meals for children ages 3-17. (1) Schools that

are able to offer meals to children based on nutrient levels reflecting

one of the four age level in the table in this paragraph should do so.

Schools that cannot offer meals to children on the basis of age levels

in the table in this paragraph shall, under Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, adjust the

established levels following guidance by FNS or, if only one age is

outside the established level, use the level provided for the majority

of children. Schools shall ensure that breakfasts are offered with the

objective of providing the per breakfast minimums for each age level as

specified in the following table:

Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Nutrients and Energy ages 3-6 ages 7-10 ages 11-13 ages 14-17

Allowances years years years years

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy allowances/

calories........... 419 500 588 625

Total fat (as a

percent of actual

total food energy). (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)

Total saturated fat

(as a percent of

actual total food

energy)............ (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)

RDA for protein (g). 5.50 7.00 11.25 12.50

RDA for calcium (mg) 200 200 300 300

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 12.50 14.40

----------------------------------------------------------

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.