National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Additional Menu Planning Alternatives

SUMMARY: The National School Lunch Act requires that schools that are

participating in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs

claim reimbursements only for lunches or breakfasts which meet the

nutrition standards of the National School Lunch Act, including

compliance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Healthy Meals

for Children Act expanded the number of menu planning alternatives

available to school food authorities participating in the National

School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. In accordance with that

legislation, this proposed rulemaking would reinstate the menu planning

system in effect for School Year 1994-95 (the traditional meal pattern)

as one of the menu planning alternatives available to local school food

authorities. In addition, this proposal would permit school food

authorities to use ``any reasonable approach'' to plan menus to meet

the nutrition standards. The Department is also proposing to clarify

and simplify several State agency monitoring responsibilities

associated with the implementation of the nutrition standards of the

National School Lunch Act.

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

e-mail comments dated on or before November 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must sent to: Mr. Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy

and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and

Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia,

22302 or via the Internet at [email protected]. All written

submissions will be available for public inspection in Room 1007, 3101

Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia during regular business hours

(8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.

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 has been determined to be significant and is

subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

Public Law 104-4

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the

Food and Nutrition Service generally prepare a written statement,

including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with

``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local,

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed

for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Food and

Nutrition Service to identify and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the

rule.

This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal

governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one

year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. However, a Regulatory Cost/Benefit

Assessment is provided in the Appendix to this preamble.

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 Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services has

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

a substantial number of small entities. The Department of Agriculture

(the Department or USDA) does not anticipate any adverse fiscal impact

on local schools as the proposal would expand the number of options

available to plan menus for school meals.

Executive Order 12372

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 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,

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 Food and Nutrition Service (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).

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.

3507, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies

to comment on the information collection.

Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 1998.

Comments concerning the information collection aspects of this

proposed rule should be sent to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Room 3208,

New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. 20503, Attention : Laura

Oliven, Desk Officer for FNS. A copy of these comments may also be sent

to Mr. Eadie at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

preamble. Commenters are asked to separate their information collection

requirements comments from their comments on the remainder of this

proposed rule.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of

information contained in this proposed regulation

[[Page 24687]]

between 30 and 60 days after the publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having

its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This

does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the

Department on the proposed regulation.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,

including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the

accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of

information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions

used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who are to respond, including

through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or

other technological collection techniques of other forms of information

technology.

The title, description, and respondent description of the

information collections are shown below with an estimate of the annual

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.

Title: 7 CFR Part 210, National School Lunch Program.

OMB Number: 0584-0006.

Expiration Date: October 31, 1999.

Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

Abstract: The National School Lunch Act requires that schools that

are participating in the school lunch program claim reimbursements only

for lunches under the program which meet the nutrition standards of the

Act, including compliance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The Healthy Meals for Children Act expanded the number of menu planning

alternatives available to school food authorities participating in the

NSLP. In accordance with that legislation, this proposed rulemaking

would reinstate the menu planning system in effect for school year

1994-95 (the traditional meal pattern) as one of the menu planning

alternatives available to local school food authorities. In addition,

this proposal would permit school food authorities to use ``any

reasonable approach'' to meet the requirements.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Department is providing the public with the opportunity to provide

comments on the information collection requirements of the proposed

rule as noted below:

BILLING CODE 3410-30-U

[[Page 24688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MY98.016

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

[[Page 24689]]

Background

On June 13, 1995, USDA published a final rule (60 FR 31188)

updating the nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program

(NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). That rulemaking was the

foundation of the Department's School Meals Initiative for Healthy

Children, an integrated, comprehensive plan for promoting the health of

the Nation's school children by updating the nutrition standards for

school meals and by providing State agencies and local food service

operators with the technical assistance to meet these standards. In

addition to announcing a fundamental change in the direction of the

school meals programs, the rulemaking implemented section 106(b) of

Public Law 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of

1994, which was enacted on November 2, 1994. That provision amended

section 9(f) of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C.

1758(f)) to require that school meals meet the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans (hereinafter referred to as the Dietary Guidelines) by School

Year 1996/1997, unless an implementation waiver of up to two years was

approved by the State agency. The rule also established specific

minimum standards for key nutrients (protein, calcium, iron, Vitamin A

and Vitamin C), and calories which school meals must meet. (As

discussed later, these standards are now also included in section 9(f)

of the NSLA.)

To assist schools with implementation of the updated nutrition

standards, the School Meals Initiative (SMI) rule provided three menu

planning alternatives: Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP), Assisted

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP) and a food-based menu planning

alternative. After publication of the final SMI rule, Public Law 104-

149, the Healthy Meals for Children Act, was enacted on May 29, 1996.

It expanded the number of menu planning alternatives which school food

authorities have available to them by including the menu planning

system that was in effect for School Year 1994-95, as a permanent

option as well as ``any reasonable approach, within guidelines

established by the Secretary * * *.''

Before a proposed rule to implement Public Law 104-149 could be

published, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, was enacted on August 22, 1996.

This law further amended section 9(f)(1)(B) of the NSLA to mandate that

school lunches and breakfasts provide, over a week, one-third and one-

fourth, respectively, of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA)

established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research

Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Because these requirements

are already included in the regulations establishing the new specific

nutrition standards for school lunches and breakfasts (Sec. 210.10(b)

and Sec. 220.8(a), respectively), this proposal would only add the

appropriate RDA requirements for the traditional meal pattern.

Menu Planning Systems

The sole menu planning system that was in effect for School Year

1994-95 was a meal pattern (the ``traditional'' meal pattern) which

stipulated the food components (meat/meat alternate, fruits/vegetables,

bread/bread alternate, and milk) and the minimum quantities of those

components that had to be offered to children of specific age/grade

groups. This meal pattern was virtually unchanged since the

establishment of the NSLP in 1946 and, until the June 13, 1995,

rulemaking, was the only menu planning system available to school food

authorities.

In order to provide flexibility as well as the tools that school

food authorities would need to meet modern nutrition standards for

children, the Department developed new menu planning alternatives

designed to facilitate compliance with the Dietary Guidelines and the

other nutrition-related requirements of section 9(f) of the NSLA. NSMP

and ANSMP provide menu planners with more flexible approaches by

eliminating the strict component and quantity requirements. Also, NSMP

and ANSMP provide actual nutrient information, including fat and

saturated fat levels, to menu planners on an on-going basis. In

addition, after the initial proposal in 1994, the Department developed

the enhanced food-based menu planning option which increased the

minimum number of servings over a week's time for the fruits/vegetables

and grains/breads components in order to maintain calorie levels while

keeping the percentages of calories from fat and saturated fat to 30

percent and less than 10 percent, respectively, as required. School

food authorities were given the option of choosing which of these menu

planning alternatives best suited their particular circumstances.

The Department developed these menu planning alternatives with the

Dietary Guidelines nutrition standards of the NSLA as the fundamental

element. The Department continues to believe that the enhanced food-

based, NSMP and ANSMP alternatives best support compliance with the

Dietary Guidelines. However, the Department acknowledges that some

school food authorities are progressing toward meeting the Dietary

Guidelines under the traditional meal pattern. Therefore, the

Department has concluded that, with increased emphasis on vegetables,

fruits and grain products and with appropriate modifications to

preparation techniques and product specifications, the traditional meal

pattern may support all of the nutrition standards required by the

NSLA. In recognition of this potential, the President signed Public Law

104-149 which amended section 9(f) of the NSLA to authorize the

traditional meal pattern as a permanent menu planning alternative as

well as any other reasonable approaches to menu planning under

guidelines established by the Secretary.

The remainder of this preamble discusses the proposed

implementation of the recent statutory amendments. This proposal also

clarifies monitoring procedures for assessing compliance with the

Dietary Guidelines and the other nutrition standards for all menu

planning alternatives.

The 1994-95 Meal Pattern (The Traditional Meal Pattern)

This proposal would reinstate the menu planning system in effect

for School Year 1994-1995 as a permanent alternative for planning

school menus under the NSLP and SBP. The SMI final rulemaking did not

allow continued use of the traditional meal pattern after June 30,

1998, the latest date that school food authorities could be authorized

to delay compliance with the Dietary Guidelines. Therefore, the

provisions for the traditional meal pattern for the NSLP were moved to

a separate section (Sec. 210.10a) so that schools could continue using

the traditional meal pattern until the newer menu planning alternatives

had been fully implemented. Similarly, the traditional meal pattern for

the SBP was redesignated as Sec. 220.8a.

Now that Public Law 104-149 has reinstated the traditional meal

pattern as a permanent, food-based menu planning alternative, this

proposal would incorporate it into paragraphs (d) and (k) of

Sec. 210.10 and into paragraphs (c) and (g) of Sec. 220.8 where the

requirements for the food-based menu planning alternative established

by the June 13, 1995, final rule are set forth. Sections 210.10a and

220.8a would be removed. Please note that, due to the statutory

amendment made after publication of the final rule, the

[[Page 24690]]

traditional menu planning approach will remain in effect after the July

1, 1998, implementation deadline in Sec. 210.10 (o) and Sec. 220.8(m).

To distinguish between the two food-based systems, the meal pattern in

effect for School Year 1994/1995 would be formally renamed the

``traditional food-based menu planning alternative.'' The food-based

menu planning alternative established in the June 13, 1995, rulemaking

would be renamed the ``enhanced food-based menu planning alternative.''

RDA for the Traditional Food-Based Menu Planning Alternative

One proposed revision to Sec. 210.10(d) of the NSLP regulations

would add a chart indicating the amounts of calories and required

nutrients that equal one-third of the RDA for key nutrients and

calories for the age/grade groups of the traditional food-based menu

planning alternative. A similar chart showing one-fourth of the RDA for

key nutrients and calories for breakfasts would be added to

Sec. 220.8(c). These additional charts are necessary as the traditional

food-based menu planning alternative follows different age/grade

groupings than used for the NSMP, ANSMP, and enhanced food-based menu

planning alternatives.

The Department recognizes the importance of offering meals that

provide a proportionate share of the nutritional needs of the nation's

schoolchildren, and that determination of whether those needs are being

met must be based on the most accurate data available. To this end, the

Department has calculated the RDA for each age group using computer

software specifically designed for this purpose. In creating the

enhanced food-based menu planning alternative, the Department developed

age/grade groupings that were averaged to more precisely meet the

calorie and nutrient levels at each age or stage of development.

Uniform groupings, based as closely as possible on the actual

nutritional needs of the various ages, for the two food-based systems

would be preferable. However, section 9(f)(4)(A)(i) of the NSLA

requires the availability of the traditional meal pattern as it existed

in the 1994-1995 school year. The Department, therefore, does not want

to add complexity to the traditional approach by proposing to make more

precise age/grade groupings apply to both food-based menu planning

alternatives. While this means menu planners using the traditional meal

pattern may continue to meet a single set of quantity requirements for

all children in the school, regardless of their age or grade, the

Department is concerned that this practice could undermine the

nutrition goals of the programs, since the food service would not be as

responsive to respond to the varying needs of children of different

ages. The Department recognizes the need to provide the traditional

approach without additional requirements but is also concerned with the

need to meet the appropriate nutrition standards. Therefore, interested

parties in the food service, nutrition and scientific communities may

wish to comment on the appropriateness of allowing a single age/grade

grouping and the associated nutrition standards.

``Any Reasonable Approach''

Public Law 104-149 amended section 9(f)(4) of the NSLA to permit

school food authorities to use ``any reasonable approach'' to menu

planning not specifically delineated in section 9(f) (3) and (4) of the

NSLA. The law makes it clear, however, that ``reasonable approaches''

must meet guidelines established by the Secretary. In developing

appropriate guidelines, the Department believes there will be two

distinct classes of proposed alternative approaches. First, some

proposed alternatives will consist of relatively minor modifications to

one or another of the four existing menu planning systems. For this

type of suggested alternative, the Department is proposing to allow

State agencies to establish a general policy allowing school food

authorities to adopt such approaches without prior Departmental

approval. The second class of alternatives will involve unique

proposals that depart significantly from existing systems. The

Department is proposing to redesignate Sec. 210.10(l) through (o) as

Sec. 210.10(m) through (p) and to add a new Sec. 210.10(l) to establish

basic requirements for authorizing both classes of alternate menu

planning approaches. For the SBP, Sec. 220.8(h) through (m) would be

redesignated as Sec. 220.8(i) through (n) and Sec. 220.8(h) would

provide for alternate menu planning approaches.

Minor ``Pre-Approved'' Modifications

The first proposed class of alternate approaches is specific, minor

modifications to provisions of the existing menu planning alternatives

and would be added at Sec. 210.10(l)(1) and Sec. 220.8(h)(1). While the

State agency may require prior approval or may establish additional

guidelines for their adoption, these modifications would be considered

``pre-approved'' in that State agencies may allow their use without any

additional review. Of course, as part of their general oversight

responsibilities under the NSLA, State agencies must ensure that the

school food authority's operations, including these ``pre-approved''

options, are consistent with the NSLP and SBP regulatory standards,

even if State agencies do not require pre-approval. The modifications

are: a weekly meat/meat alternate standard (for the NSLP only) and

flexible age/grade groupings for the food-based menu planning

alternatives (for both the NSLP and SBP). While only two modifications

are proposed, the Department solicits suggestions on similar variations

that could be included under this category of other approaches.

The Department was also asked to consider extending a policy

currently applicable only to lunches planned under the enhanced food-

based menu planning approach to the traditional food-based menu

planning approach. This policy, at Sec. 210.10(k)(2), allows menu

planners to credit up to one grain-based dessert daily towards the

weekly grain/bread requirements. This policy was established to provide

additional flexibility for menu planners as the number of required

grain/bread items increased substantially over the number required for

the traditional food-based menu planning approach. For example, for

grades 7-12, the traditional food-based alternative required eight

servings (but recommended 10) while 15 servings are required for the

enhanced food-based approach.

The Department gave this suggestion serious consideration. However,

crediting up to one grain-based dessert daily as a serving of grains/

breads for the traditional food-based menu planning alternative is too

significant a proportion of the total number of required grain/bread

items. A child selecting a grains-based dessert on a daily basis would

have the majority of their grains/breads component over the week met

through the consumption of dessert. Given this concern, the Department

is not proposing to extend this policy to the traditional food-based

menu planning approach. However, the Department would appreciate

comments on this issue.

1. Weekly Meat/Meat Alternate Quantity Standard

Some food service directors have indicated that it is not always

practical to offer the full daily minimum portion of the meat/meat

alternate component required for the NSLP under the food-based menu

planning alternatives. For example, a serving of less than the required

four tablespoons of peanut butter or two ounces of cheese in a sandwich

may produce a more

[[Page 24691]]

appealing entree while the full amount required can lead to waste. To

address this situation, those school food service directors have

suggested that schools using either of the food-based menu planning

systems be allowed the flexibility to vary the quantity of meat/meat

alternate on a daily basis as long as the total amount served over the

course of the school week equals the minimum daily quantity multiplied

by the number of serving days in the week. For example, the amount of

meat/meat alternate served on a given day could be only one ounce or

the equivalent provided that the full 10 ounces (for grades 4-12) or

equivalent of meat/meat alternate were available over a five day week.

This alternative would enable meal planners using a food-based

alternative much of the same flexibility enjoyed by their counterparts

using NSMP while still ensuring that minimum quantities of essential

foods were offered to children over a week's time.

After considering this suggestion, the Department agrees that it

could provide additional flexibility without compromising the

nutritional integrity of the meals served over the course of the school

week. However, the Department does not believe that the school food

authority's ability to vary the quantity of this component should be

completely unrestricted. Therefore, the Department is proposing to

require that a minimum of one ounce or its equivalent of meat/meat

alternate be offered daily. This proposal would ensure that the amount

of meat/meat alternate offered to the student will be reasonably

consistent each day while still providing menu planners with enhanced

flexibility. The Department emphasizes that the option to vary the size

of the meat component would not apply to those situations in which the

minimum quantity requirement is one ounce or less.

The Department is not proposing to extend this option to the meat/

meat alternate-grains/breads component of school breakfasts because

flexibility is already provided under the food-based menu planning

alternatives. However, comments are requested on whether extending the

weekly meat/meat alternate to the SBP would be useful and appropriate.

In proposing this option, the Department recognizes that there will

be complexities with its implementation, especially in schools that

offer multiple entree choices, since children may not select items over

the week that equal the full weekly meal component requirement.

Therefore, comments are particularly requested on these and other

potential difficulties as well as any suggestions on ways to ensure

that the nutritional integrity of the meal service is not compromised.

The modification for the meat/meat alternate component is proposed at

Sec. 210.10(l)(1)(i).

2. Flexible Age-Grade Groupings for Food-Based Alternatives

Children enrolled in a given school may span different age/grade

groupings for purposes of the nutrient and calorie level requirements

and corresponding portion sizes for components under the food-based

menu planning alternatives. Under the NSMP and ANSMP menu planning

alternatives, if only one age or grade is outside the established

nutrient and calorie level requirements for the majority of children,

schools are permitted, under Sec. 210.10(i)(1)(ii) and

Sec. 220.8(e)(1)(ii), to use the nutrition standards for that majority.

In the interests of consistency and flexibility, the Department is

proposing to extend this option to the food-based alternatives as well.

Under the proposal, schools using the enhanced food-based

alternatives would be permitted to plan menus using the minimum

quantity requirements applicable to the majority of children provided

that no more than one age or grade falls outside the requirements for

the majority of children. For example, if a school following the

enhanced food-based menu planning alternative serves children in grades

6, 7 and 8, the school may, if it chooses, plan menus meeting the

nutrient levels and quantities for grades 7 through 12 in lieu of

varying the menus and portion sizes for the children in grade 6. This

option would eliminate the need to meet two sets of nutrient and

calorie levels as well as portion requirements when only a limited

number of children are affected. The Department notes that this option

will generally be applicable to schools using the enhanced food-based

alternative since it is not needed for the traditional food-based menu

planning alternative because of the broader range of the groups and

because schools may use the portion sizes for the grades 4-12 group

when the school has a large number of grades. However, under the

proposal, this option could be adopted by schools using either food-

based menu planning alternative. This proposed change would be found at

Sec. 210.10(l)(1)(ii) for the lunch program and at Sec. 220.8(h)(1) for

the breakfast program.

The Department believes that school food authorities should plan

menus and offer meals that best meet the nutrient and calorie levels

for each age or grade group of all of the children. The age/grade

groupings are geared to best meet the recommended levels of calories

and other nutrients for a particular period in a child's development.

However, the Department also recognizes that allowing the proposed

option for schools using the food-based alternatives provides increased

flexibility.

Major Changes or New Alternatives

The second class of alternate approaches concerns major changes to

one of the existing menu planning systems and may be developed by

either school food authorities or State agencies. Within this second

class, the regulations, as proposed, would require that any major

change or new alternative developed by a school food authority be

subject to State agency review and approval. State agency approval is

critical because major variations developed and used only by a school

food authority need to be carefully assessed to gauge potential impact

on the delivery of meals to children, both nutritionally and fiscally.

Further, school food authority-level approaches would not have the

benefit of the State agency's expertise when forming their approach.

State agency-developed alternatives would be subject to Departmental

review and approval unless there was an on-going State agency/school

food authority partnership and enough school food authorities intending

to adopt the alternate approach to warrant the significant involvement

of the State agency.

Written Submissions

The Department is proposing that any alternate approach developed

by either a school food authority or State agency be committed to

writing prior to its implementation. The written description must

outline the intended procedures as well as indicate how the required

elements for alternate approaches (as proposed under Sec. 210.10(l)(3)

and Sec. 220.8(h)(3) for the lunch and breakfast programs,

respectively) will be met. For those approaches subject to prior

review, a written submission is needed to ensure a comprehensive

review. For those approaches not subject to prior review, a written

description needs to be available for monitoring purposes. The

Department is not, however, proposing any specific format or requiring

a formal plan, other than proposing that the intended procedures and

the required elements be addressed in writing for any proposed

alternative approach. This

[[Page 24692]]

provision is proposed at Sec. 210.10(l)(2) and Sec. 220.8(h)(2).

State Agency-Developed Systems: Approval Procedures

Some State agencies have developed or intend to develop their own

menu planning alternatives for use by their school food authorities.

State agency-developed alternatives could involve either extensive

modifications to one of the existing menu planning alternatives or

development of an altogether new alternative. As mentioned above, the

Department is proposing different approval procedures for State agency-

developed approaches depending on whether there is on-going,

operational support from the State agency.

For the purpose of approval, the first type of a State-agency

developed alternate approach is one that the State agency develops and

then makes available to its school food authorities without on-going

support and assistance. Because the State agency will not have any on-

going operational role in such approaches, the Department believes

independent review is essential prior to implementation of an alternate

approach by any school food authority. This review would ensure that

the changes or the new alternative adequately meets program

requirements and goals. Therefore, the Department is proposing to

require State agencies to submit this type of alternate approach to the

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for review and approval before

implementation. The approval procedures are proposed at

Sec. 210.10(l)(2) and Sec. 220.8(h)(2), respectively, for the lunch and

breakfast programs.

The second type of alternate approach would also involve either

extensive modifications to one of the existing menu planning

alternatives or development of an altogether new alternative. The

Department is proposing that these approaches not be subject to

approval by FNS when the State agency is an active and on-going partner

with the school food authorities, if there are a sufficient number of

school food authorities adopting it to warrant the State agency's

commitment of resources necessary to its successful operation and the

State agency issues an announcement notifying the public of the

alternate approach. With the State agency's active involvement, there

is oversight as well as the ability to promptly adjust the policies and

procedures of the approach to ensure efficient and effective operation

and compliance with all applicable requirements. The Department is

proposing that these approaches must be adopted by at least five school

food authorities within the State. The proposed requirement for a

public announcement allows for review of the State agency's approach by

any concerned parents, students, program administrators, etc. In

addition to the public announcement, the Department considered

requiring that State agencies hold public hearings (in accordance with

established State procedures) on these types of alternative approaches.

The Department would appreciate comments on whether public hearings, in

addition to the public announcement, are a more effective way to notify

the public and whether the benefits of conducting a hearing outweigh

the costs to the State agency.

This type of State agency-developed alternate approach is intended

to allow innovative, large-scale State agency-sponsored menu planning

systems to operate without prior approval. An example of a large-scale

system that extensively modifies current regulatory requirements

(specifically the weighting component and software requirements for

NSMP) is the Shaping Health as Partners in Education (SHAPE) program,

which has been successfully operated in California for several years.

Because the SHAPE program is already operational, the requirement for

issuing a public announcement is not applicable.

The Department emphasizes that the different approval requirements

for the State agency-developed alternate approaches are based on the

differing degrees of State agency involvement. When the State agency is

acting as a partner and is routinely assisting school food authorities

and providing technical assistance, it can, if needed, quickly

determine if implementation at the local level is not successful or if

the system itself needs to be modified to meet the required elements

such as compliance with the nutrition standards. In the other

situations, there is no continuous State agency presence. Instead, the

State agency simply makes the system available to local school food

authorities as another option from which they may chose and would only

be able judge its effectiveness under normal review procedures.

Therefore, the Department is proposing, at Sec. 210.10(l)(2)(iii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(2)(iii), that any State-agency developed system is not

subject to prior FNS approval if five or more school food authorities

adopt the approach, if the State agency maintains on-going oversight

including making adjustments to the approach's policies and procedures,

as needed, to ensure compliance with the nutritional and other meal

service requirements, and if the State agency makes a public

announcement concerning the alternate menu planning approach prior to

its implementation by any school food authority. Please keep in mind,

though, that all alternate approaches would be subject to the proposed

minimum requirements discussed below.

Required Elements for Alternate Approaches

In devising the guidelines for reasonable approaches other than the

proposed ``pre-approved'' modifications, the Department balanced the

necessity to foster innovation and flexibility with the equally

compelling need to maintain program accountability administratively,

fiscally and nutritionally. The basic consideration is that every menu

planning alternative, regardless of the source or the level of

approval, must meet all statutory requirements. Also, the Department is

proposing to include a limited number of guidelines that are based on

discretionary regulatory procedures that the Department feels are

essential to effective and efficient program management unless the

alternate approach is one of the distinct situations with on-going

State involvement (the second type discussed above). With this extra

involvement and oversight by the State agency, school food authorities

would be provided additional flexibility.

Offering Fluid Milk

Section 9(a)(2) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)) requires that

school food authorities offer fluid milk to children participating in

the NSLP. Section 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA),

(42 U.S.C. 1773 (e)(2)), requires that a combination of foods be served

in the SBP and that breakfasts ``* * * meet minimum nutritional

requirements prescribed by the Secretary * * *'' The provision of fluid

milk is one of the minimum nutritional requirements established for the

SBP under Sec. 220.8(h). Therefore, any alternate menu planning

approach must also offer fluid milk for both the NSLP and SBP. The

provisions requiring milk to be offered in the school programs for any

alternate approach are proposed at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(i) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(i), for the NSLP and SBP, respectively.

Offer Versus Serve (OVS)

Section 9(a)(3) of the NSLA (42 U.S. C. 1758(a)(3)) requires that

schools implement OVS in the NSLP for senior high school children; at

local option, school food authorities may adopt OVS in the lunch

program for lower grades as well. Under section 4(e)(2) of the CNA (42

U.S. C. 1773 (e)(2)), local

[[Page 24693]]

school food authorities may also implement OVS for the SBP. OVS

encourages children to make selections that they prefer, thus helping

to reduce plate waste. Because of the statutory mandate, any menu

planning alternative designed by an school food authority or State

agency for use in the NSLP must include OVS for senior high school

children. OVS will continue to be optional at the discretion of school

food authorities in the SBP.

While OVS would continue to be required for senior high school

students, school food authorities and State agencies would be permitted

by this rulemaking to propose alternatives to the OVS approaches

currently permitted in the regulations. Such approaches must be based

on the existing regulatory OVS structures as much as possible. For

example, OVS for alternate food-based systems must be patterned on the

OVS requirements in Sec. 210.10(k)(6) and Sec. 220.8(g)(3), while those

for alternate NSMP approaches must be based on the requirements of

Sec. 210.10(i)(2)(ii) and Sec. 220.8(e)(2)(ii).

If the existing OVS procedures in Sec. 210.10(k)(6)/

Sec. 220.8(g)(3) or Sec. 210.10(i)(2)(ii)/Sec. 220.8(e)(2)(ii) are not

followed, the description of the alternate approach must indicate what

age/grade groups are included, how plate waste would be reduced and how

the meal, as taken, will provide a reasonable level of nutrients and

calories. As discussed in more detail below, any modifications to the

existing OVS procedures must include the number and type of items (and,

if applicable, the quantities for the items) that constitute a

reimbursable meal. These provisions on OVS in alternate menu planning

approaches are proposed at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(ii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vi) for the lunch and breakfast programs,

respectively.

Nutrition Standards

As discussed earlier, the NSLA requires school lunches to

approximate, over a week's time, one-third of the RDA needed by growing

children of different ages. School breakfasts must provide one-fourth

of the RDA. In addition, the menus must comply with the recommendations

of the Dietary Guidelines. These requirements cannot be modified.

Therefore, any alternate menu planning approach must ensure that

these standards, as implemented in Sec. 210.10(b)(1)-(b)(4) for the

NSLP and Sec. 220.8(a)(1)-(a)(4) for the SBP, would be met or exceeded

for the age/grade groups to be served. In addition, the alternate

approach must indicate how the proposal is designed to meet these

standards. The requirements are proposed at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(iii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(ii).

Competitive Foods

For both the NSLP and SBP, Section 10(a) of the CNA (42 U.S.C.

1779(a)), requires regulations ``* * * relating to the service of food

* * * in competition with the [school meals] programs * * *.'' To

implement this provision, Sec. 210.11(b) and Sec. 220.12(a) prohibit

the sale of foods of ``minimal nutritional value'' in the cafeteria

area during the service of meals. Appendix B to each of these parts

lists the foods considered to be foods of minimal nutritional value.

Any alternate approach may not alter this statutory provision and the

implementing regulations. This restriction is proposed at

Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(iv) and Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(iii) for the lunch and

breakfast programs, respectively.

Crediting Foods Under Food-Based Type Approaches

Paragraphs (k)(3)-(k)(5) and (m) of Sec. 210.10; Sec. 220.8(g)(2)

and (i); and the Appendices to Parts 210 and 220 provide the basic

crediting policies for food items offered in the school meals programs

for food-based menu planning alternatives. These crediting policies are

expanded upon in FNS instructions and guidance. This proposal would

require that any alternate food-based menu planning approaches follow

the existing food crediting policies for school meals. The Department's

standards for crediting food items are designed to maintain the

nutritional integrity of school meals by ensuring that foods used to

satisfy quantity and component requirements provide a sufficient amount

of the component or its equivalent to count toward meeting the meal

requirements.

To be credited, foods must be both present in the minimum required

quantities and identifiable as at least one of the required food

components of the meal pattern (meat/meat alternate, fruits/vegetables,

grains/breads and fluid milk). These foods may be served as single food

items or as combinations in recipes or in commercially processed foods.

To assist in the identification of the definition of the basic foods,

the Department relies on government and industry standards of identity

and/or specifications. These standards are essential to ensuring that

the individual meal merits Federal reimbursement and that the meal

service, over time, complies with the programs' nutrition standards.

Therefore, the Department is proposing at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(v) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(v) that the minimum quantities established to credit

food items as components under the food-based menu planning systems be

adhered to in any food-based menu planning alternate approach.

Identification of a Reimbursable Meal

The concept of a reimbursable meal is essential to program

integrity. Sections 210.10 and 220.8 of the regulations establish

definitions of a reimbursable meal for the four menu planning

alternatives currently recognized by the NSLA. Under the traditional

meal pattern and the enhanced food-based menu planning system for

lunches, the school food authority must offer minimum quantities of a

meat/meat alternate, a grain/bread item, two separate fruits/vegetables

and fluid milk as a beverage. This requirement is found at

Sec. 210.10(k). Under NSMP and ANSMP, the school must offer an entree,

fluid milk and at least one additional menu item for lunches. This

requirement is found at Sec. 210.10(i)(2)(i) for the NSLP. The parallel

requirements for the SBP are at Sec. 220.8 (e) and (g).

This proposal would require that any alternate approach comply with

the current requirements for reimbursable meals to the extent possible.

When the existing procedures are not followed, the proposed alternate

approach must detail what constitutes a reimbursable meal, including

the number and type of item (and if applicable, the quantities for each

item) and how a reimbursable meal is to be identified at the point of

service by the children, the cashiers, and any reviewers. The proposals

appear at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(vi) and Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(v), respectively,

for the school lunch and breakfast programs.

Monitoring Compliance

Section 210.18 of the regulations establishes methods for

determining if school food authorities are meeting the administrative

requirements for the school meals programs while Sec. 210.19 provides

for reviewing compliance with the nutrition standards. In determining

the essential elements for any alternate approach, the Department

believes that these monitoring aspects must be incorporated so that the

State agency can determine if reimbursable meals are being offered,

accepted, and properly counted and if the meal service is in compliance

with all of the nutrition and administrative standards.

The Department expects that, in most cases, alternate approaches

can be monitored within the existing criteria for both coordinated

review effort (CRE) and nutrition reviews. As discussed below, some

aspects of Performance Standard 2 in Sec. 210.18 must be modified

[[Page 24694]]

to take into account the flexibility for alternate approaches. However,

the Department does not believe that the procedures for conducting CRE

reviews will need to be revised in order to accommodate alternate

approaches. Therefore, this rule would require, in Sec. 210.10(l)(vii)

and Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vi), that the alternate approach be subject to CRE

reviews under the current procedures provided in Sec. 210.18.

However, in some cases, the proposed alternate approach may not

lend itself to the established nutrition review methods. Therefore, to

allow the State agency to ensure that an alternate approach can be

reviewed adequately for compliance with the nutrition standards, any

alternate approach must include either an explanation of how the

alternate approach could be monitored within the existing criteria in

Sec. 210.19 or a comprehensive nutrition monitoring plan that the State

agency could follow. As part of this plan, the alternate approach must

include a description of the records it will maintain to document

compliance with administrative and nutrition requirements. This

provision is proposed at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(vii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vi) for both the administrative and nutrition review

aspects. Conforming amendments are also proposed to Sec. 210.19(a) and

are discussed in greater detail later in this preamble.

Weighted Averages for NSMP/ANSMP

Sections 210.10(i)(5) and 220.8(e)(5) require school food

authorities using NSMP or ANSMP to conduct nutrition analyses by

weighting all foods planned as part of the reimbursable meal service.

This weighting is done according to the frequency with which each food

is actually offered. The purpose of weighting is to assist in ensuring

that meals actually offered to children meet the nutrition standards.

The Department acknowledges that weighted averages are not the only way

to ensure compliance with the nutrition standards. In fact, in order to

make the transition to the updated menu planning methods easier and to

ensure that every avenue for promoting sound nutrition is explored, the

Department has authorized temporary waivers of this regulatory

requirement. The waivers allow the Department the opportunity to

evaluate weighted and unweighted averages to determine their accuracy

in indicating determinations of compliance with the nutrition

standards. The Department believes that this temporary postponement

through a State agency waiver is the appropriate way to ease

implementation and to permit further evaluation of this requirement. As

part of this evaluation process, the Department is particularly

interested in receiving comments on the use of a weighted nutrient

analysis versus nonweighted approaches. Comments from operators using

nutrient analysis and their experiences with weighting would be

especially helpful. The Department would also like comments from State

agency reviewers and their experiences with weighting when evaluating

meal services.

However, until the Department determines that alternatives to

weighted averages adequately ensure that meals comply with the

nutrition standards, weighted averages continue to be required for NSMP

systems other than those for which a waiver has been granted.

Accordingly, the Department is proposing to require compliance with the

weighting requirements for alternate NSMP-type approaches. However, the

Department is proposing to provide added flexibility in those instances

in which the State agency has developed the alternate approach and is a

partner with at least five school food authorities and maintains on-

going oversight of the operation and evaluation. The level and

consistency of the State agency's involvement coupled with a more rapid

response to problems in order to make needed adjustments allows for

further innovation. These provisions are proposed at

Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(viii) and Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vi).

Approved Software for NSMP and ANSMP

Sections 210.10(i)(4) and 220.8(e)(4) require menu planners using

NSMP or ANSMP to conduct or to have their analyses conducted using

software that incorporates the National Nutrient Database for Child

Nutrition Programs and is approved by FNS. The software must meet the

minimum requirements established by FNS such as having the capability

to perform all functions required after the basic data has been

entered, including calculating weighted averages, and the optional

combining of the analyses of the NSLP and SBP. The Department is aware

that there are many nutrition software packages available; however,

many of these are for individuals or for clinical settings such as

hospitals. The software approved by FNS is designed to meet the needs

of school food service professionals and fulfills two essential

criteria--the ability to perform all the requirements of the

regulations and the achievement of uniform results. The Department also

notes that the number and variety of software packages approved to date

ensures that school food authorities have extensive flexibility in

choosing a package that best meets their individual needs. Therefore,

this proposal would require, at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(viii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vii), that any alternate approach use approved

software.

Again, however, the Department is proposing to allow modification

of the required specifications for software for any alternate approach

under the same limited circumstances allowing for modification of

weighted analysis. In those situations in which the State agency

developed the alternate approach and remains an active partner and five

or more school food authorities adopt the alternate approach, the

Department is proposing, at Sec. 210.10(l)(3)(viii) and

Sec. 220.8(h)(3)(vii), to permit the use of software which does not

meet the regulatory requirements. While this means that the software

would not need to incorporate the National Nutrient Database nor would

it be required to have prior FNS approval, the alternate approach would

still need to meet all the nutrition standards. Again, the Department

believes that the on-going State agency oversight provides sufficient

assurance that any software will provide appropriate nutrient analysis

and, to the extent that deficiencies are identified, that they will be

rapidly addressed.

The Department also wishes to emphasize that weighted analyses and

standard software packages do not, in and of themselves, determine the

kinds and amounts of foods provided. Rather, they are fundamentals in

the internal monitoring system which enables schools, school food

authorities, and State agencies to measure the success of the food

service in complying with the nutrition standards. Consequently,

modification of these requirements, without substantial care and

involvement by the State agency, may undermine the accuracy of the

nutrition analysis and compromise the ability of menu planners to make

necessary adjustments. This is the basis for the Department's decision

to not apply the weighting and software specification requirements to

those situations in which there will be substantial State agency

involvement and oversight.

Monitoring Requirements for Compliance With the Nutrition Standards

The Department is proposing to clarify some aspects of the

nutrition monitoring requirements in order to ensure appropriate State

agency oversight of all menu planning alternatives. In addition, some

conforming amendments are proposed due to the reinstatement of the

[[Page 24695]]

traditional food-based menu planning alternative and the availability

of alternate approaches.

Monitoring Procedures for the Traditional System and for Alternate

Approaches

The current monitoring provisions for the food-based and nutrient

standard menu planning alternatives are found at Sec. 210.18 and

Sec. 210.19. As discussed earlier, any alternate approach must be

capable of being monitored under Sec. 210.18. In addition, if the

alternate approach cannot be monitored under Sec. 210.19, there must be

a description of alternate monitoring procedures to ensure compliance

with the fiscal, administrative and nutrition standards.

This proposed rule would amend Sec. 210.18 and Sec. 210.19 to make

clear that the existing monitoring requirements apply to the

traditional food-based menu planning alternative as well as to the

enhanced food-based and nutrient standard menu planning systems. In

addition, technical amendments are made to modify the terminology in

Sec. 210.18 and Sec. 210.19 related to Performance Standard 2 which

establishes review criteria to assure that the lunches served by

schools are reimbursable. In other words, any school lunch must contain

whatever meal elements that are required for reimbursable lunches under

each of the menu planning alternatives. In order to clarify that all

the various menu planning approaches are subject to Performance

Standard 2, technical amendments are proposed to Sec. 210.18(b)(2)(ii),

(g)(2), and (i)(3)(ii) and to Sec. 210.19(c)(6)(i) to reference the

various terms used to stipulate the elements in a reimbursable meal.

Finally, Sec. 210.19 would be amended to make clear that the

nutrition review procedures for food-based and nutrient standard

alternate approaches are the same as those for food-based and nutrient

standard menu planning systems, respectively, except for those

alternate approaches that do not lend themselves to existing nutrition

review procedures. In those cases, the nutrition review procedures are

those review procedures developed under Sec. 210.10(l).

Adjustments to Review Periods

The Department is proposing to adjust the review period for

nutrition reviews. Currently, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of

Sec. 210.19 stipulate that the State agency is to review the school's

nutrition analysis or conduct an independent analysis for the last

completed week prior to the review. The intent of this provision was to

ensure that the analysis reflected the current state of the meal

service. However, some State agencies have noted that, under CRE, as

detailed in Sec. 210.18, State agencies select the month prior to the

month of the review as the sample period. Consequently, State agencies

which would elect to conduct nutrition reviews concurrently with CRE

reviews will likely need to look at two different review periods during

the same visit. Therefore, in the interests of efficiency, this

proposal would permit reviewers to conduct the assessment of compliance

with nutrition standards for any week of the current school year prior

to the month of the review. However, the week selected must continue to

represent the current state of the meal service. The State agency could

select, for example, a week for the nutrition review that was in the

same month in which a CRE was scheduled. The Department believes that

this proposed provision will still allow State agencies to determine

whether the program is in compliance with the nutrition standards and,

if necessary, prescribe appropriate steps for improvements by requiring

review of a relatively current period that is typical of the on-going

meal service. This change is proposed at Sec. 210.19(a)(1)(i).

Extent of Reviews

Another proposal would amend Sec. 210.19(a) to clarify that, during

the review cycle, State agencies must review at least one school for

each type of menu planning alternative used by the school food

authority. For example, if eight schools in a school food authority use

the traditional meal pattern, three use the enhanced food-based system

and five use NSMP, the State would select at least one school from each

category. The Department recognizes that, in some cases, this

requirement would result in more schools being visited for nutrition

compliance than are required to be reviewed under CRE. The Department

believes, however, that this coverage is essential to ensure that the

school food authority is following all alternatives correctly. For

example, a school food authority may be achieving great success with

the enhanced food-based system but may not be conducting NSMP properly.

The only way for the State agency to identify this problem, provide

appropriate technical assistance and require corrective action is to

examine the school food authority's experience with all alternatives in

use. This amended is proposed at Sec. 210.19(a)(1).

The proposal would also clarify that State agencies are required to

perform the necessary nutrition review on only the lunch program unless

the school food authority uses a particular menu planning alternative

only for the breakfast program. For example, if all of the schools in a

school food authority use either NSMP or the enhanced food-based system

for lunch, and at least some of the schools use the traditional food-

based menu planning alternative for breakfast, the State agency would

need to conduct two lunch reviews (one of a school using NSMP and one

of a school using the enhanced food-based system) and one review of a

breakfast program which uses the traditional meal pattern. However, if

all three of these alternatives are used for the lunch program in the

school food authority, no review of the breakfast program would be

needed. The Department cautions, however, that if the lunch review

indicates that the school food authority needs technical assistance

and/or corrective action, the State agency may wish to review a

breakfast program as well to determine if the school food authority

needs to take specific corrective action for that program as well. In

these cases, the review of the breakfast program could be done either

at the time of the initial lunch review or as part of any follow-up

needed to further evaluate the results of technical assistance or

corrective action.

Conforming Review Cycles

Finally, the Department is proposing a minor technical amendment to

Sec. 210.19(a)(1)(i) to make the cycle for nutrition reviews consistent

with the cycle for administrative reviews under CRE. The SMI rule

established a five-year cycle for reviews of nutrition compliance and

intended that cycle to run concurrently with the CRE cycle so that

those States electing to conduct nutrition reviews at the same time as

administrative reviews could do so efficiently. The regulation

currently stipulates that the first five-year cycle would begin on July

1, 1996, unless the State agency authorized a temporary waiver of

compliance with the nutrition standards, in which case the first year

of the cycle could begin as late as July 1, 1998. Consequently, the

first five-year cycle would end as early as June 30, 2001 or as late as

June 30, 2003, depending upon actual implementation. The current CRE

cycle ends on June 30, 1998, however, and the next cycle will end on

June 30, 2003. Therefore, the two review cycles would be out of

sequence for State agencies which implement the regulations before

School Year 1998/1999.

While State agencies are not required to conduct nutrition reviews

at the same time as administrative reviews, the Department proposes to

make the two

[[Page 24696]]

review cycles coincide so that State agencies may avail themselves of

this option efficiently. To achieve this goal, therefore, the

Department is proposing to establish an initial cycle of seven years

for nutrition reviews, from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2003.

Thereafter, review cycles would be five years in length. This expanded

cycle would allow State agencies more flexibility during the

implementation phase to complete reviews and provide schools with

necessary assistance.

The Department notes that the extended time frame for completing

nutrition reviews increases the need for State agencies to identify

school food authorities that may have menu planning difficulties in

order to schedule visits to them as early as possible in the cycle. The

Department also would like State agencies to comment on any increased

potential for noncompliance that might result from this extension and

whether or not the Department should consider establishing intermediate

review goals within the cycle.

Updating the Dietary Guidelines and Other Technical Changes

Section 9(f)(1)(A) of the NSLA requires that schools offer meals

consistent with the goals of the ``most recent Dietary Guidelines for

Americans.'' The June 13, 1995, SMI rulemaking incorporated the 1990

edition of the Dietary Guidelines as program requirements because they

were, at that time, the latest official version. The Department

indicated, however, that later editions would be incorporated to

reflect any revisions to the recommendations. In December 1995, the

Department, in partnership with the Department of Health and Human

Services, issued the 1995 edition. While there were no substantive

differences between the 1995 edition and the 1990 edition, there were

some minor language revisions. Therefore, the Department is taking this

opportunity to propose amending Sec. 210.10(b)(3) and Sec. 220.8(a)(3)

to incorporate the minor wording changes of the 1995 guidelines, and to

change references to the 1990 guidelines to 1995.

The 1995 Dietary Guidelines also include the suggestion that the

diets of children between the ages of two and five should be gradually

altered so that, by age five, they receive no more than 30 percent of

their calories from fat. Since the Dietary Guidelines do not treat this

suggestion as a formal recommendation, the Department is not

incorporating it into Sec. 210.10(b)(3) or Sec. 220.8(a)(3), where the

Dietary Guidelines' recommendations are enumerated. However, a footnote

containing this information would be added to the charts in

Sec. 210.10(c)(1), Sec. 210.10(c)(2), Sec. 210.10(d), Sec. 220.8(b)(1),

Sec. 220.8(b)(2) and Sec. 220.8(c)(1). The Department is also aware

that the RDA are in the process of being reviewed and that an update is

scheduled to be released in 1999. At that time, the Department will

propose any needed revisions to the key nutrient and calorie levels.

The name of the database used in the nutrient analysis software has

been changed from the ``National Nutrient Database for the Child

Nutrition Programs'' to the ``Child Nutrition Database.'' This proposal

would, therefore, update the references to the database in

Sec. 210.10(i) and Sec. 220.8(e).

It was brought to the Department's attention that there was a

misstatement in the preamble of the final regulation published on June

13, 1995. The regulation, Child Nutrition Programs: School Meal

Initiatives for Healthy Children, was published in the Federal Register

at 60 FR 31188. The erroneous statement at 60 FR 31203 was:

* * * program regulations (Sec. 210.11(a) and Sec. 220.12(a))

prohibit the sale of certain foods of minimal nutritional value in

the food service area between the start of school and the last lunch

period of the day.

The correct policy is contained in Sec. 210.11(b) for the NSLP. The

correct policy is:

Such rules or regulations [established by State agencies or

school food authorities] shall prohibit the sale of foods of minimal

nutritional value, as listed appendix B of this part, in the food

service areas during the lunch periods.

(Emphasis added)

This policy may found for the SBP at Sec. 220.12(a).

Although the statement in the preamble was incorrect, the actual

regulatory language contained in Sec. 210.11 (b) was correct. The

Department regrets any confusion this error may have caused.

Appendix to Preamble--Regulatory Cost/Benefit Assessment

1. Title: National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast

Program: Additional Menu Planning Alternatives.

2. Background:

a. Need for Action: Public Law 104-149, the Healthy Meals for

Children Act, amended the National School Lunch Act by expanding the

number of alternatives available to plan menus for the school meals

programs. Section 9(f) of the National School Lunch Act was amended

to allow schools to continue using the meal planning system in

effect in School Year 1994-95 as well as the other meal planning

alternatives already available. In addition, the Act was amended to

allow schools to use ``* * * any reasonable approach, within

guidelines established by the Secretary * * *''.

The menu planning system in effect in School Year 1994-95 was

the ``traditional pattern'' which has been in use for many years,

and which requires four components (meat/meat alternate, breads/

grains, fruits/vegetables and milk) and five items. Because this

alternative was to be deleted from the regulations at the end of the

implementation period (July 1, 1998), this proposal would reinstate

this alternative permanently. In addition, this proposal would

establish the guidelines for ``any reasonable approach'' to ensure

that schools continue to serve reimbursable meals and provide proper

accountability for Federal reimbursement while still having the

flexibility to design a menu planning alternative that meets their

particular needs.

Before the Department issued a proposal to implement Public Law

104-149, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was enacted on August 22,

1996. This law further amended the National School Lunch Act to

mandate that school lunches provide, over a week, one-third of the

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) and that school breakfasts

provide one-fourth of the RDA. These requirements are, however,

already included in the school programs' regulations.

b. Affected parties: The entities affected by this proposal are

State agencies, school food authorities, the nation's school

children, and the Food and Nutrition Service.

c. Promotes the President's Priorities: This proposal would

promote the President's commitment to flexibility for program

administrators while continuing to support the objectives of

providing meals to the nation's school children that meet the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other established nutrition

standards.

3. Statutory Authority: Public Law 104-149.

4. Cost-Benefit Assessment of Economic and Other Effects:

Reinstatement of the Traditional Meal Pattern

Background: The proposed regulation would reinstate the meal

pattern in effect in School Year 1994-1995 as one menu planning

alternative. The meal pattern would be incorporated into the section

of the regulation establishing the food-based menu planning

alternatives and would be entitled the ``traditional food-based menu

planning alternative.'' The food-based alternative implemented in

the June 5, 1995, final rule would be renamed ``the enhanced food-

based menu planning alternative.'' The provision would provide a

table with the minimum levels of nutrients (calories, protein,

calcium, iron, Vitamin A, and Vitamin C) for the age/grade groups of

the meal pattern. Further, the provision makes minor conforming

amendments to allow for monitoring compliance with the nutrition

standards for this additional menu planning alternative.

Effects of Reinstating the Traditional Meal Pattern

Benefits: The provision permanently reinstating the meal pattern

in effect during

[[Page 24697]]

School Year 1994-1995 will allow schools to use a meal pattern with

which they are familiar. Extensive experience with the traditional

meal pattern has allowed schools to successfully develop menus that

meet program requirements and are popular with students. The

reinstatement of the traditional meal pattern provides schools with

an additional menu planning option and even greater flexibility in

meeting the nutritional needs of students.

The rule extends nutrition monitoring provisions pertaining to

reviews of the enhanced food-based menu planning option to reviews

of schools using the traditional meal pattern. School lunches are

required to provide, over a week's time, one-third of the RDA for

key nutrients (protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C) and

calories needed by growing children of different ages. School

breakfasts are required to provide, over a week's time, one-fourth

of the RDA for key nutrients (protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and

vitamin C) and calories needed by growing children. In addition,

schools should be making progress towards providing meals which

comply with the Dietary Guidelines, including the recommendations

that no more than 30 percent of calories come from fat and that

saturated fat be limited to less than 10 percent of calories. The

extension of this provision to the traditional food-based meal

planning systems will ensure that children in schools using this

system will receive meals of comparable nutritional quality as

children in schools using the enhanced food-based menu plan. This

provision does not require any additional burden of school food

authorities as regulations require any menu planning system to

provide comparable levels of RDAs for key nutrients and comply with

the Dietary Guidelines.

Costs: The 1993 USDA School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study

(SNDA) assessed the nutritional quality of lunches served under the

traditional meal pattern. SNDA found that the amount of nutrients in

the average school lunch provided under the traditional meal pattern

exceeded the standard of one-third of the daily RDA for the age

groups at the elementary, middle, and high school level for most

nutrients. However, the average percentage of food energy from total

fat offered in school lunches was 38 percent, compared with the

Dietary Guideline goal of not more than 30 percent; the percentage

from saturated fat was 15 percent, compared with the Dietary

Guideline of less than 10 percent.\1\ In addition, the Continuing

Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989-91 found that

school-age children have average daily intakes of 33.7 to 34.7

percent of calories from fat, and 12.6 to 13.3 percent of calories

from saturated fat depending on age-sex group.

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

\1\ Burghardt, JC, A. Gordon, N. Chapman, P. Gleason, T. Fraker

(1993). The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: School Food

Service, Meals, and Dietary Intakes. October 1993.

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

The SNDA and CSFII findings heightened awareness of the need to

improve the nutritional quality of school meals. In response the

Department initiated the School Meals Initiative for Healthy

Children, the first program-wide reform of the school meals program

since its establishment in 1946. Since the introduction of the

School Meals Initiative the Department has provided training and

technical assistance designed to assist school food service

personnel in implementing the Dietary Guidelines. FNS has sponsored

training on the preparation of healthier meals; provided recipes

which are lower in fat and sodium; and issued grants to assist State

agencies in establishing statewide training systems to assist local

agencies in implementing the Dietary Guidelines. The Department has

also increased efforts to provide lower fat commodities to local

school districts.

Even with increased efforts by the Department, State agencies

and school food authorities to provide schools with the knowledge

and skills necessary to successfully implement the Dietary

Guidelines, the possibility still exists that it might prove

difficult for some schools using the traditional food-based meal

pattern to comply with the recommendations. In these instances, it

may be necessary for the school food authority or the State agency

to provide further training of the school food service personnel to

enable them to successfully develop meal patterns which comply with

the Dietary Guidelines.

The State agency will be responsible for monitoring progress

towards meeting the Dietary Guidelines and nutrition standards and

for making adjustments in procedures that schools follow in order to

ensure effective progress toward eventual compliance with the

updated nutritional requirements. Should a number of schools using

the traditional food-based menu pattern encounter difficulty in

meeting the Dietary Guidelines, the State agency will need to

cooperate with the school food authority in designing corrective

action to rectify the deficiencies. Additionally, the State agency

will need to monitor the execution of corrective action taken by the

school food authority to ensure that progress is being made towards

meeting the Dietary Guidelines.

Since most State agencies used the1996-1997 school year to train

staff to conduct the nutrient analyses, the number of analyses that

were actually completed was fewer than expected. As a result, there

is no data available on the number of school food authorities that

fail to meet the nutrient standards and need to take corrective

action.

Any Reasonable Approach to Meal Planning

Benefits: Public Law 104-149 permits school food authorities to

use ``any reasonable approach'' to menu planning not specifically

delineated in the regulations. The law makes it clear, however, that

approval of other ``reasonable approaches'' must be in accordance

with guidelines established by the Secretary. In developing

appropriate guidelines, the Department considers that there are two

classes of additional reasonable approaches. The first class of

reasonable approaches consists of alternatives which are essentially

relatively minor modifications to one or another of the existing

menu planning systems. The second class of alternatives would

involve unique proposals that depart significantly from the existing

systems.

Minor Modifications

The Department believes that minor modifications to existing

meal planning systems do not pose significant questions about

nutritional content or program integrity. Therefore, to reduce

unnecessary paperwork, the Department is proposing to authorize

State agencies to permit their school food authorities to choose any

of the following adaptations without applying to the State agency

for approval. The decision to authorize any or all of these

modifications rests entirely with the State agency. State agencies

may establish a general policy allowing school food authorities to

adopt any or all of these approaches without prior approval or chose

to review requests from school food authorities. The preapproved

approaches are:

1. Weekly Meat/Meat Alternate Quantity Standard: Schools using

one of the food-based menu planning systems would be allowed the

flexibility to vary the quantity of the meat/meat alternate on a

daily basis as long as the total amount served over the course of

the school week equals the minimum daily quantity multiplied by the

number of serving days in the week. Schools would still be required

to serve a minimum of one ounce of meat/meat alternate daily.

2. Flexible Age-Grade Groupings for Food-Based Systems: Under

the analysis-based menu planning options, if only one age or grade

in a school is outside the established RDA and calorie requirements

for the majority of students, schools are permitted to use the

nutrition standards for that majority. In the interests of

consistency and flexibility, the Department is proposing to extend

this option to the food-based systems as well.

Innovative Approaches

The second class of other reasonable approaches involves

innovative systems that are not currently established in program

regulations and guidance. These innovative menu planning systems

could be developed by school food authorities for use in their

schools, or developed by State agencies and made available to their

school food authorities. The Department envisions two approaches

that State agencies could take in developing menu planning systems.

It would be possible for a State to develop a unique menu planning

system and then refrain from being involved in the operation or

evaluation of the system. In these cases, the system would have to

be submitted to the Department for approval before implementation.

The second scenario involves systems developed by the State, used by

multiple school food authorities (at least five) within the State,

and the State agency remains an active partner in the operation and

evaluation of the system on an ongoing basis and issues an

announcement notifying the public of the alternate menu planning

approach. In this case, the State would not be required to submit

the system to the Department for approval prior to implementation.

Any meal planning system proposed by a school food authority or

a State agency

[[Page 24698]]

would have to be assessed for its potential impact on the delivery

of meals to children, both nutritionally and fiscally. To achieve

these goals, the Department is proposing to establish a framework

and criteria for consideration and approval of such requests. Any

approach developed by a State agency or a school food authority

would need to ensure that the following areas, which are critical to

the proper and efficient operation of the program, be satisfied:

1. Identification of Reimbursable Meals: The definition of a

reimbursable meal is essential to program integrity. The four menu

planning systems specifically recognized by the statute have

specific requirements for a reimbursable lunch or breakfast. In

keeping with these principles, the school food authority would need

to outline, in any proposed menu planning alternative, what

constitutes a reimbursable meal; how these will be identified by the

students in the line and by food service staff at the point of

service; and how reviewers will be able to document compliance.

Likewise, the State agency must determine that the reimbursable meal

will offer sufficient nutrition on a daily basis to justify Federal

reimbursement.

2. Provide for Offer versus Serve: When developing a menu

planning alternative, school food authorities must provide for offer

versus serve (OVS), as appropriate. Section 9(a)(4) of the NSLA

requires that schools implement OVS in the NSLP for senior high

students; at local option, school food authorities may adopt OVS in

the lunch program for lower grades as well. Local school food

authorities may also implement OVS for the SBP. The purpose of OVS

is to encourage students to make selections that they prefer, thus

helping to reduce plate waste. Therefore, because of the statutory

mandate, any menu planning approach proposed by an school food

authority or State agency must include OVS for senior high students

at a minimum.

3. Compliance with Nutrition Standards: By law, school lunches

are required to provide, over a week's time, one-third of the RDA

for key nutrients and one-third of the calories needed by growing

children of different ages. In addition, the meals must comply with

the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. School breakfasts

must provide one-fourth of the RDA and calorie needs and also must

comply with the Dietary Guidelines. Under no circumstances can these

requirements be modified. Therefore, any request to employ an

alternate menu planning approach would need to demonstrate, to the

satisfaction of the State agency, that the menus would continue to

meet or exceed these standards. Furthermore, because the RDA can

vary by age and/or grade group, the school food authority would need

to specify which age/grade groups will be served and indicate what

the appropriate RDA and calorie levels are for each age/grade group.

4. Ability to Monitor: Any alternate approach must be capable of

being monitored by the State agency to determine that reimbursable

meals are being offered, accepted, and properly counted and that the

meal service is in compliance with all of the nutrition standards.

While the Department wishes to provide school food authorities

with maximum flexibility to develop alternate menu planning

approaches, this proposed rule would prohibit State agencies from

approving modifications to the existing four menu planning options

beyond those discussed above as automatic options. The Department

considers that certain requirements governing these options must

remain intact except for limited exceptions for special State-wide

systems. Consequently, the following operational components of the

established menu planning systems may not be modified except as

discussed below:

1. Weighted Averages for NSMP/ANSMP: The regulations require

schools employing NSMP or ANSMP to conduct their analyses by

weighting all foods planned as part of the reimbursable meal service

according to the amount of each food actually intended to be

produced, based on production records or experience. However, in

order to make the transition to updated menu planning methods as

smooth as possible and to ensure that every avenue for promoting

sound nutrition while minimizing burden is explored, the Department

authorized a delay in implementing this regulatory requirement for

all schools adopting NSMP until the Department has the opportunity

to evaluate the ability of weighted and unweighted averages to

provide accurate determinations of compliance with the nutrition

standards.

2. Use of Approved Software for NSMP and ANSMP: The regulations

also require menu planners electing to use NSMP or ANSMP to conduct

or to have their analyses conducted using software approved by the

Department. The Department is aware that there are many nutrition

software packages available; however, many of these are for

individuals or for clinical settings such as hospitals. The software

approved by USDA is designed to meet the needs of school food

service professionals and fulfills essential school-based needs.

3. Crediting Requirements for Food-Based Alternatives: This

proposed rule would prohibit State agencies from disregarding any of

the Department's crediting policies for schools electing to use a

food-based menu planning system. The Department's standards for

crediting food items are designed to maintain the nutritional

integrity of school meals by ensuring that foods used to satisfy

quantity and component requirements provide a sufficient amount of

the component or its equivalent to count toward meeting the meal

requirements, standards of identity and/or specifications.

4. Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value: The Department also

wishes to emphasize that States may not, under any circumstances,

approve the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value as defined in

program regulations.

However, the Department is also proposing that, in certain

limited situations, menu planning systems, supported by the

knowledge and resources of a State agency, can operate with

modifications beyond those available to school food authorities

while maintaining the necessary control over the nutritional content

of their meals. Therefore, this proposal would authorize

modification in some menu planning systems of the provisions on

weighted nutrient analysis and approved software, provided that:

these systems are operated under policies and procedures developed

or adopted by a State agency; the State agency remains an active

participant in the operation and evaluation of the project on an

ongoing basis; and the system is used by multiple school food

authorities (at least five) within the State and the State agency

issues a public announcement concerning the alternative menu

planning approach.

Effects of Implementing ``Any Reasonable Means''

Benefits: The provision permitting the use of ``any reasonable

approach'' to menu planning will provide school food authorities with

even greater flexibility in developing a menu service which meets the

needs and preferences of local children. The rule contains a provision

allowing school food authorities to make minor modifications to

existing meal planning systems. The rule also contains provisions which

allow school food authorities or States to make extensive modifications

to existing menu planning systems or to develop innovative systems that

are not currently established in program regulations and guidance.

The rule proposes that certain minor modifications by a school

food authority to one or another of the existing meal systems would

be allowed, at the discretion of the State agency, without prior

approval. An example of the additional flexibility to be gained by

individual schools is the ability to vary the amount of meat/meat

alternate served on daily basis. This provision provides schools

with an option that allows them to produce a more appealing entree

or to reduce the amount of plate waste while still meeting the

minimum weekly serving requirement of a meat/meat alternate.

A school food authority desiring to make more than minor

modifications would be permitted to develop a proposal which differs

significantly from the existing meal planning systems. The authority

to develop their own menu planning systems will allow school food

authorities to take into consideration any unique local food

preferences or dietary needs when planning such systems.

The provisions of this rule allow State agencies to develop

their own menu planning alternatives and make them available to

local school food authorities. State agencies will have the

opportunity to develop, in consultation with school food authorities

within their State, a menu planning system designed to meet the

specific needs of the children of their State rather than one

designed for the tastes and needs of the national student

population.

The rule allows such a menu planning system to use alternate

weighting procedures and software while continuing to operate within

normal regulatory authority, provided that the system is used by at

least five school food authorities within the State, the State

agency remains an active participant in the

[[Page 24699]]

operation and evaluation of the system on an ongoing basis and

notifies the public about their alternative menu planning approach.

This provision would provide State agencies with increased

flexibility in the selection of software used to conduct the

nutrient analyses.

Costs: While it is entirely possible that local menu planners

may devise systems which produce nutritious meals which are

appealing to children, these innovative systems are, by their very

nature, untested and subject to unforeseen consequences. Any unique

meal planning system will be required to serve meals which provide

the same level of key nutrients as any of the prescribed meal

patterns. It is possible that a locally developed system might have

difficulty complying with the recommendations. In these instances,

school food authorities and States might find it necessary to

provide additional training and technical assistance to those

schools failing to meet the nutrition requirements. However, it is

also reasonable to expect that innovation may result in lower costs

methods being devised. In either case, the nutrient standards remain

the same; and the anticipated impacts on agriculture and the

children's health are verifiable.

As noted previously, the percentage of total calories from fat

consumed by school aged children in the late 1980's and early 1990's

was above what was recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans. Because States will conduct reviews once every five

years, several years may pass before problems in meeting the

nutritional guidelines will be detected. If schools fail to meet the

nutrient standards using innovative systems, it is possible that the

nutritional quality of some school meals may be deficient for a

period of up to five years. However, FNS has anecdotal evidence that

school food authorities have made improvements in their ability to

meet the Dietary Guidelines.

As with the traditional meal pattern, the State agency will

still be responsible for monitoring the progress these locally

developed systems make toward complying with the Dietary Guidelines

and nutrition standards. Should any such system or systems fail to

comply with these standards, the State agency would need to work

with the school food authorities to devise corrective action that

would ensure that the menu planning systems would make progress

towards, and eventually comply with, the Dietary Guidelines. If

locally developed systems prove to have difficulty meeting the

required nutritional requirements, the State agency would be faced

with an increased monitoring burden without a concomitant reduction

in any other monitoring burdens.

At this time it is impossible to determine the additional burden

that will be required of State agencies as a result of school food

authorities developing their own menu planning systems and failing

to meet the nutrition standards. As stated earlier, the 1996-1997

school year is the first one in which States have been required to

conduct the nutrient analyses so no data is available as to the

number of schools failing to meet the standards. Additionally, FNS

has no indications as to how many local agencies might choose to

develop their own menu planning systems. It is also impossible to

determine the additional nutritional risk placed on children in

schools that have difficulty meeting the Dietary Guidelines.

However, because there is a certain amount of uncertainty regarding

the ability of schools to meet the nutritional requirements under

innovative systems, FNS acknowledges that nutritional risk exists.

Miscellaneous Monitoring Provisions

Background: The Department is also proposing a number of

amendments to the requirements for nutrition monitoring designed to

ensure appropriate State agency oversight of all menu planning

alternatives and to clarify some existing provisions.

First, the nutrition monitoring provisions pertaining to reviews

of the enhanced food-based menu planning option would be extended to

reviews of schools using the traditional meal pattern and other

reasonable approaches. As part of these reviews, the State agency

must conduct a nutrient analysis using the regulatory procedures

schools follow for NSMP.

Second, the Department is proposing to redefine the review

period for nutrition reviews which is currently the last completed

week prior to the review in order to expedite concurrent reviews of

the nutrition standards and reviews for compliance with serving

reimbursable meals and free/reduced price application requirements

as conducted under coordinated review effort (CRE) reviews. The

proposal would permit reviewers to conduct the nutrition review for

any week prior to the month of review as is allowed in other

reviews.

A third proposed provision would clarify that State agencies

must conduct at least one review of every menu planning option

employed by the school food authority. The proposal also clarifies

that State agencies would be required to review only the lunch

program unless the school food authority uses a particular menu

planning option for breakfast but not for lunch, in which case at

least one school's breakfast program would need to be reviewed.

A fourth proposed change would require State agencies to ensure

that there are appropriate methods for monitoring compliance with

the nutrition standards in schools using approved reasonable

approaches. At a minimum, nutrition monitoring in these schools

would be required to include a nutrient analysis by the State agency

using software approved for NSMP.

Finally, the Department is proposing a minor technical amendment

to make the cycle for nutrition reviews consistent with the cycle

for administrative reviews under CRE. The cycle for conducting

nutrition standard reviews was intended to run concurrently with the

CRE cycle so that those States electing to conduct nutrition reviews

at the same time as administrative reviews could do so efficiently.

While State agencies are not required to conduct nutrition reviews

at the same time as administrative reviews, the Department intended

to make the two review cycles coincide so that State agencies could

avail themselves of this option efficiently. To achieve this goal,

therefore, the Department is proposing to establish an initial cycle

for nutrition reviews as seven years, from July 1, 1996 through June

30, 2003. Thereafter, review cycles would be five years in length.

This expanded cycle would allow State agencies more flexibility

during the implementation phase to complete reviews and provide

schools with necessary assistance.

Effects of Miscellaneous Monitoring Provisions

Benefits: The rule contains minor provisions which provide State

agencies with greater flexibility in scheduling of nutrition

reviews. The rule allows States to conduct the nutrient analysis

based on one week in the month prior to the month of review. Current

regulations require that the week chosen for analysis be the last

completed week prior to review. Allowing the State agency to choose

a week in any month prior to the month of review allows the States

to coordinate their nutrition review with the CRE administrative

reviews.

The rule proposes to alter the nutrition review cycles so that

States wishing to conduct their nutrition reviews at the same time

as their CRE administrative reviews will be able to do so. The June

13, 1995 final rule established a five-year cycle for reviews of

nutrition compliance. The regulation stipulated that the first five-

year cycle could begin as early as July 1, 1996 or as late as July

1, 1998. As a result, the first cycle could end as soon as June 30,

2001, or as late as June 30, 2003, depending upon implementation.

The current CRE cycle ends on June 30, 1998 and the following cycle

will end June 30, 2003. So that the two cycles might coincide, the

rule proposes to establish an initial cycle for nutrition reviews of

seven years, from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 2003. The expanded cycle

would allow State agencies more flexibility during the

implementation phase to complete reviews and provide schools with

necessary assistance.

Costs: When the June 13, 1995 final rule established reviews of

nutrition compliance, the Department did not anticipate that the

traditional meal pattern would continue to be an option after June

30, 1998, so no provision was made requiring a nutrient analysis for

schools using this meal pattern. The proposed rule extends nutrition

monitoring provisions pertaining to reviews of the enhanced food-

based menu planning option to reviews of schools using the

traditional meal pattern. The requirement that a nutritional

analysis be conducted on schools using the traditional meal plan

does not place any additional burden on State agencies.

The rule requires that State agencies must conduct at least one

review of every menu planning option employed by the school food

authority. This requirement could result in more schools being

reviewed for nutrition compliance than would be required to be

reviewed under CRE. For each school it takes one staff person

approximately one and a half days to complete a CRE review. This

would come at the approximate cost of $216 for

[[Page 24700]]

each additional school.\2\. The Department believes this coverage is

necessary to ensure that the school food authority is employing all

menu planning systems correctly. The only way for the State agency

to identify problems and provide technical assistance is to examine

the school food authorities experience with all systems. It is

impossible to determine how many more schools State agencies will

have to review for nutrition compliance than would be required for

CRE as the Department has no data on how many school food

authorities use multiple menu planning systems.

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

\2\ Cost calculated assuming 12 hours to review each school at a

wage rate of $18 an hour.

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

Other Effects of the Proposed Regulation

Effects of Rule on NSLP Participation

The provisions of this rule may have a small effect on

participation in the National School Lunch Program. The provisions of

this rule may have the effect of making meals more appealing which may

increase participation. Implementation of the rule is not expected to

increase meal prices or decrease meal acceptability. The rule allows

schools to continue to use the current meal pattern. Additionally,

school food authorities and States are now able to develop menu plans

that they feel would be even more appealing to their student population

than the menu plans prescribed by the Department.

Effects of Rule on Program Costs

The provisions in this proposed rule will provide increased

flexibility to State or local program operators but have no budgetary

impact.

Effects on Small Entities

This proposal will not have significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. This proposal does not add any

new requirements and there are no required additional costs. School

food authorities and schools may experience some positive effects from

this proposed rule as noted previously.

Summary of the Effects of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule provides school food authorities and State

agencies with increased choices and flexibility in selecting a menu

planning system by permanently reinstating the meal pattern in effect

during the 1994-1995 school year and providing guidelines for approval

of other reasonable approach alternatives that schools may develop.

The proposed rule contains minor monitoring provisions. It extends

monitoring provisions pertaining to reviews of the enhanced food-based

menu planning option to reviews of schools using the traditional meal

pattern. It provides State agencies with greater flexibility in

selection of the week to be reviewed for nutrient compliance. Further,

the proposed rule alters the nutrition review cycle so that it

coincides with the CRE administrative review cycle. This will allow

State agencies to more easily conduct nutrient reviews at the same time

as administrative reviews.

The proposed rule is not expected to have any impact on program

participation, nor is the rule expected to have any budgetary impact.

The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

5. Public Comments: This proposal will provide a 180-day comment

period.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 210

Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs, Grant

programs--education, Grant programs--health, Infants and children,

Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast

and lunch programs, Surplus agricultural commodities.

7 CFR Part 220

Food assistance programs, Grant programs--education, Grant

programs--health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs.

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

follows:

PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 210 continues to read as

follows:

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

Sec. 210.2 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 210.2:

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

words ``or one of the four food groups which compose the reimbursable

school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, bread or bread

alternate, and vegetable/fruit under Sec. 210.10a'';

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

``or one of the five required foods that compose the reimbursable

school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, bread or bread

alternate, and two (2) servings of vegetables, fruits, or a combination

of both for the purposes of Sec. 210.10a''; and

c. the definition of ``Lunch'' is amended by removing the words

``Sec. 210.10(k)(2) or the school lunch pattern for specified age/grade

groups of children as designated in Sec. 210.10a'' and adding in their

place the words ``Sec. 210.10(k)(1) or Sec. 210.10(k)(2), whichever is

applicable''.

Sec. 210.4 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 210.4, paragraph (b)(3) introductory text is amended by

removing the words ``Sec. 210.10(n)(1) or Sec. 210.10a(j)(1), whichever

is applicable'' and adding in their place a reference to ``Sec. 210.10

(o)(1)''.

Sec. 210.7 [Amended]

4. In Sec. 210.7:

a. paragraph (c)(1)(v) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable,''; and

b. paragraph (d) is amended by removing the words

``Sec. 210.10(n)(1) or Sec. 210.10a(j)(1), whichever is applicable''

and adding in their place a reference to ``Sec. 210.10(o)(1)''.

Sec. 210.9 [Amended]

5. In Sec. 210.9:

a. paragraph (b)(5) is amended by removing the words ``or 210.10a,

whichever is applicable'';

b. paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the words

``Sec. 210.10(n)(1) or Sec. 210.10a(j)(1), whichever is applicable''

and adding in their place a reference to ``Sec. 210.10(o)(1)''; and

c. paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable''.

6. In Sec. 210.10:

a. paragraph (a)(1) is amended by revising the first sentence and

by adding a new sentence at the end of the paragraph;

b. the second sentence of paragraph (a)(3) is amended by removing

the word ``or'' and adding in its place a comma and by adding the words

``or those developed under paragraph (l)'' after the reference to

``paragraph (i)(1)''; the third sentence of paragraph (a)(3) is amended

by removing the third occurrence of the word ``or'' and adding in its

place a comma, and adding the words ``or those developed under

paragraph (l)'' after the reference to ``paragraph (i)(1)'';

c. paragraph (b)(1) is amended by making the word ``paragraph''

plural, by removing the second occurrence of the word ``or'' and adding

in its place a comma and by adding the words ``or (l)'' after the

reference to ``(i)(1)'';

d. paragraph (b)(2) is amended by removing the second occurrence of

the word ``or'' and adding in its place a comma, and by adding the

words ``or (l)'' after the reference to ``(i)(1)'';

[[Page 24701]]

e. paragraph (b)(3) is revised;

f. paragraph (b)(4) introductory text is amended by removing the

reference to ``1990'' and adding in its place a reference to ``1995'';

g. the first sentence of paragraph (b)(5) is revised;

h. the table in paragraph (c)(1) is revised;

i. the table in paragraph (c)(2) is revised;

j. paragraph (d) is revised;

k. the heading of paragraph (i)(4) and paragraph (i)(9) are

amended by removing the words ``National Nutrient Database'' and adding

in their place the words ``Child Nutrition Database'';

l. paragraphs (i)(4) and (i)(8) are amended by removing the words

``National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition Programs''

wherever they appear and by adding the words ``Child Nutrition

Database'' in their place;

m. the heading of paragraph (k) is revised and introductory text is

added;

n. paragraph (k)(1) is revised;

o. the heading of paragraph (k)(2) and the introductory text before

the chart are revised;

p. the first two sentences of paragraph (k)(4) are redesignated as

paragraph (k)(4)(i) and the last sentence of paragraph (k)(4) is

redesignated as paragraph (k)(4)(ii) and is revised;

q. paragraph (k)(5) is amended by adding a new paragraph

(k)(5)(iii);

r. paragraph (k)(5)(ii) is amended by adding two new sentences

between the second and third sentences;

s. paragraphs (l) through (o) are redesignated as paragraphs (m)

through (p), respectively, and a new paragraph (l) is added;

t. newly redesignated paragraph (o)(3)(iv) is amended by removing

the reference to ``(n)(3)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``(o)(3)''; and

u. in newly redesignated paragraph (p), the reference to ``1990''

is removed and a reference to ``1995'' is added in its place.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 210.10 Nutrition standards for lunches and menu planning methods.

(a) General requirements for school lunches. (1) In order to

qualify for reimbursement, all lunches served to children age 2 and

older, as offered by participating schools, shall, at a minimum, meet

the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (b) of this section and

the appropriate levels of calories and nutrients provided in: paragraph

(c) or paragraph (i)(1) of this section for nutrient standard menu

planning and assisted nutrient standard menu planning; paragraph (d)(1)

of this section for the traditional food-based menu planning

alternative; paragraph (d)(2) of this section for the enhanced food-

based menu planning alternative; or as developed in accordance with the

provisions in paragraph (l) of this section for other menu planning

alternatives, whichever is applicable. * * * In addition, those school

food authorities that use menu planning approaches as allowed under

paragraph (l) of this section shall ensure that sufficient quantities

of food are planned and produced to meet the provisions in paragraph

(b) of this section and any minimum standards for food/menu items and

quantities.

* * * * *

(b) Nutrition standards for reimbursable lunches. * * *

(3) The applicable recommendations of the 1995 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 grain products, vegetables, and

fruits;

(vi) Choose a diet moderate in salt and sodium; and

(vii) Choose a diet moderate in sugars.

* * * * *

(5) School food authorities have several alternatives for menu

planning in order to meet the nutrition standards of this paragraph and

the applicable nutrient and calorie levels: nutrient standard menu

planning as provided for in paragraph (i) of this section; assisted

nutrient standard menu planning as provided for in paragraph (j) of

this section; traditional food-based menu planning as provided for in

paragraph (d)(1) of this section; enhanced food-based menu planning as

provided for in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; or other menu

planning approaches as provided for in paragraph (l) of this section. *

* *

(c) Nutrient levels for school lunches/nutrient analysis.

(1) * * *

Minimum Requirements for Nutrient Levels for School Lunches--Nutrient Analysis Alternatives (School Week

Averages)

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

Minimum requirements Optional

Nutrients and energy allowances ---------------------------------------------------------------

Preschool Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 Grades K-3

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

Energy allowances (calories).................... 517 664 825 633

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy......................................... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual

total food energy)............................. (\1\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)

RDA for protein (g)............................. 7 10 16 9

RDA for calcium (mg)............................ 267 286 400 267

RDA for Iron (mg)............................... 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.3

RDA for Vitamin A (RE).......................... 150 224 300 200

RDA for Vitamin C (mg).......................... 14 15 18 15

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

(2) * * *

Optional Nutrient Levels for School Lunches--Nutrient Analysis Alternatives (School Week Averages)

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

Ages 14 and

Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 3-6 Ages 7-10 Ages 11-13 above

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

Energy allowances (calories).................... 558 667 783 846

[[Page 24702]]

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy)........................................ (1, 2) (2) (2) (2)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual

total food energy)............................. (1, 3) (3) (3) (3)

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

Vitamin C (mg).................................. 14.6 15.0 16.7 19.2

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

(d) Minimum nutrient levels for school lunches/food-based menu

planning alternatives.

(1) Traditional food-based menu planning alternative. For the

purposes of the traditional food-based menu planning alternative, as

provided for in paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the following chart

provides the minimum levels, by grade group, for calorie and nutrient

levels for school lunches offered over a school week:

Minimum Requirements for Nutrient Levels for School Lunches--Enhanced Food-Based Alternative (School Week

Averages)

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

Minimum requirements Optional

Nutrients and energy allowances ---------------------------------------------------------------

Preschool Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 Grades K-3

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

Energy allowances (calories).................... 517 664 825 633

Total fat (as a percentage of (actual total food

energy)........................................ (\1\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual

total food energy)............................. (\1\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)

RDA for protein (g)............................. 7 10 16 9

RDA for calcium (mg)............................ 267 286 400 267

RDA for Iron (mg)............................... 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.3

RDA for Vitamin A (RE).......................... 150 224 300 200

RDA for Vitamin C (mg).......................... 14 15 18 15

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school year.

* * * * *

(k) Food-based menu planning alternatives. School food authorities

may choose to plan menus using either the traditional or enhanced food-

based menu planning alternatives. Under these alternatives, specific

food components shall be offered as provided in either paragraphs

(k)(1) or (k)(2) of this section, whichever is applicable, and in

paragraphs (k)(3) through (k)(5) of this section, as appropriate.

(1) Minimum quantities-traditional food-based menu planning

alternative. (i) At a minimum, school food authorities choosing to plan

menus using the traditional food-based menu planning alternative shall

offer all five required food items in the quantities provided in the

following chart:

Traditional Food-Based Menu Planning Alternative

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

Minimum quantities Recommended

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quantities

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

Food components and food items Group 1, ages 1-2 Group II, ages 3-4 Group III, ages 5-8 K- Group IV, ages 9 and Group V, 12 years and

preschool preschool 3 older grades 4-12 older grades 7-12

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

Milk (as a beverage)............... 6 fl. oz.............. 6 fl. oz.............. 8 fl. Oz............. 8 fl. oz............. 8 fl. oz.

Meat or Meat Alternate (quantity of

the edible portion as served):

Lean meat, poultry, or fish.... 1 oz.................. 1\1/2\ oz............. 1\1/2\ oz............ 2 oz................. 3 oz.

Cheese......................... 1 oz.................. 1\1/2\ oz............. 1\1/2\ oz............ 2 oz................. 3 oz.

Large egg...................... \1/2\................. \3/4\................. \3/4\................ 1.................... 1\1/2\.

Cooked dry beans or peas....... \1/4\ cup............. \3/8\ cup............. \3/8\ cup............ \1/2\ cup............ \3/4\ cup.

Peanut butter or other nut or 2 Tbs................. 3 Tbs................. 3 Tbs................ 4 Tbs................ 6 Tbs.

seed butters.

The following may be used to meet

no more than 50% of the

requirement and must be used in

combination with any of the above:

[[Page 24703]]

Peanuts, soynuts, tree nuts, or \1/2\ oz.=50%......... \3/4\oz.=50%.......... \3/4\oz.=50%......... 1 oz.=50%............ 1\1/2\ oz.-50%.

seeds, as listed in program

guidance, or an equivalent

quantity of any combination of

the above meat/meat alternate

(1 oz. of nuts/seeds=1 oz. of

cooked lean meat, poultry, or

fish).

Yogurt, plain or flavored, 4 oz. or \1/2\ cup.... 6 oz. or \3/4\ cup.... 6 oz. or \3/4\ cup... 8 oz. or 1 cup....... 12 oz. or 1\1/2\ cup.

unsweetened or sweetened.

Vegetable or Fruit: 2 or more \1/2\ cup............. \1/2\ cup............. \1/2\ cup............ \3/4\ cup............ \3/4\ cup

servings of vegetables, fruits

or both.

Grains/Breads: (Servings per 5 per week--minimum of 8 per week--minimum of 8 per week--minimum 8 per week--minimum 10 per week--minimum

week): Must be enriched or \1/2\ day. 1 per day. of 1 per day. of 1 per day. of 1 per day.

whole grain or made from flour

which may include bran and/or

germ. A serving is a slice of

bread or an equivalent serving

of biscuits, rolls, etc., or

\1/2\ cup of cooked rice,

macaroni, noodles, other pasta

products or cereal grains.

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

(ii) Schools able to provide the appropriate quantities of food to

children of each age/grade group should do so. Schools that cannot

serve children of each age or grade level shall provide all school age

children Group IV portions as specified in the table presented in this

paragraph. Schools serving lunches to children of more than one age or

grade level shall plan and produce sufficient quantities of food to

provide Groups I-IV no less than the amounts specified for those

children in the table presented in this paragraph, and sufficient

quantities of food to provide Group V no less than the specified

amounts for Group IV. It is recommended that such schools plan and

produce sufficient quantities of food to provide Group V children the

larger amounts specified in the table. Schools that provide increased

portion sizes for Group V may comply with children's requests for

smaller portion sizes of the food items; however, schools shall plan

and produce sufficient quantities of food to at least provide the

serving sizes required for Group IV.

(2) Minimum quantities-enhanced food-based menu planning

alternative. At a minimum, school food authorities choosing to plan

menus using the enhanced food-based menu planning alternative shall

offer all five required food items in the quantities provided in the

following chart:

* * * * *

(4) Vegetables and fruits. * * *

(ii) Under the enhanced food-based menu planning alternative, the

requirement for this component is based on minimum daily servings plus

an additional one-half cup in any combination over a five day period

for children in kindergarten through grade six.

(5) Grains/breads. * * *

(ii) * * * Schools serving lunch 6 or 7 days per week should

increase the weekly quantity by approximately 20 percent (1/5) for each

additional day. When schools operate less than 5 days per week, they

may decrease the weekly quantity by approximately 20 percent (1/5) for

each day less than five.* * *

(iii) Under the traditional food-based menu planning alternative,

schools shall serve daily at least one-half serving of bread or bread

alternate to children in Group I and at least one serving to children

in Groups II-V. Schools which serve lunch at least 5 days a week shall

serve a total of at least five servings of bread or bread alternate to

children in Group I and eight servings per week to children in Groups

II-V.

* * * * *

(l) Other menu planning alternatives.

(1) Modifications. School food authorities may adopt any or all of

the following menu planning alternatives. State agencies may require

prior approval for adopting the alternatives, may establish guidelines

for their adoption, or may permit their adoption without prior

approval.

(i) Under the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning

alternatives provided for in paragraph (k) of this section, the meat/

meat alternate component may be provided as a weekly total with a one

ounce (or its equivalent for certain meat alternates) minimum daily

amount, except that this provision does not apply if the minimum

serving of meat/meat alternate is less than one ounce; or

(ii) Under the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning

alternatives, if only one age or grade is outside the established

levels, schools may use the levels for the majority of children for

both portions and the Recommended Dietary Allowances and lunchtime

energy allowances.

(2) Major changes or new alternatives: use and approval. Subject to

the applicable requirements of paragraph (l)(3) of this section, school

food authorities or State agencies may modify one of the menu planning

alternatives established in paragraphs (i) through (k) of this section

or may develop their own menu planning approach. Any such alternate

menu planning approaches shall be in writing for review and monitoring

purposes, as applicable. No formal plan is required; the written

[[Page 24704]]

alternate approach may be in the form of guidance, protocol, or the

like. The alternate approach shall address how the provisions in

paragraph (l)(3) shall be met.

(i) Any school food authority-developed menu planning approach must

have prior State agency review and approval.

(ii) Except as noted in paragraph (l)(2)(iii), any State agency-

developed menu planning approach must have prior FNS approval.

(iii) Any State agency-developed menu planning approach is not

subject to FNS review if:

(A) Five or more school food authorities within the State use the

approach;

(B) The State agency maintains on-going oversight of the operation

and evaluation of the alternative menu planning approach including

making adjustments to the approach's policies and procedures, as

necessary, to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions in

paragraph (l)(3) of this section as needed; and

(C) The State agency issues an announcement notifying the public

concerning the alternate menu planning approach prior to the

implementation of the approach by any school food authority; such

announcement shall be issued in a manner consistent with State

procedures for public notification.

(3) Major changes or new alternatives: required elements. The

following requirements shall be met by any alternate menu planning

approach:

(i) The service of fluid milk, as provided in paragraph (m) of this

section;

(ii) Offer versus serve for senior high students. To the extent

possible, the offer versus serve procedures for an alternate approach

shall follow the procedures in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii) and (k)(6) of this

section, as appropriate. Any alternate approach which deviates from the

provisions in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii) or (k)(6) of this section shall, at

a minimum, indicate what age/grade groups are included in offer versus

serve and establish the number and type of items, (and, if applicable,

the quantities for the items) that constitute a reimbursable meal under

offer versus serve. In addition, the alternate offer versus serve

procedures shall include an explanation of how such procedures will

reduce plate waste and provide a reasonable level of calories and

nutrients for the meal as taken;

(iii) The nutrition standards in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4)

of this section. Any alternate approach shall indicate the age/grade

groups to be served and how such approach is designed to meet these

requirements for those age/grade groups;

(iv) The requirements for competitive foods in Sec. 210.11 and

Appendix B to this part.

(v) For alternate food-based menu planning approaches, the

requirements for crediting food items and products provided for in

paragraphs (k)(3) through (k)(5) and paragraph (m) of this section, in

the appendices to this part, and in instructions and guidance issued by

FNS;

(vi) Identification of a reimbursable meal at the point of service.

To the extent possible, the procedures provided in paragraph (i)(2)(i)

of this section for nutrient standard or assisted nutrient standard

menu planning alternatives or for food-based menu planning alternatives

provided in paragraph (k) of this section shall be followed. In

addition, any instructions or guidance issued by FNS that further

defines the elements of a reimbursable meal shall be followed when

using the existing regulatory provisions. Any alternate approach that

deviates from the provisions in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or paragraph (k) of

this section shall indicate what constitutes a reimbursable meal,

including the number and type of items (and, if applicable, the

quantities for the items) which comprise the meal, and how a

reimbursable meal is to be identified at the point of service.

(vii) An explanation of how the alternate approach can be monitored

under the applicable provisions of Sec. 210.18 and Sec. 210.19,

including a description of the records that will be maintained to

document compliance with the program's administrative and nutrition

requirements. However, to the extent that the procedures under

Sec. 210.19 are inappropriate for monitoring the alternate approach,

the alternate approach shall include a description of review procedures

which will enable the State agency to assess compliance with the

nutrition standards in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section; and

(viii) the requirements for weighted analysis and for approved

software for nutrient standard menu planning as required by paragraphs

(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section unless a State agency-developed

approach meets the criteria in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section.

* * * * *

Sec. 210.10a [Removed]

7. Section 210.10a is removed.

Sec. 210.15 [Amended]

8. In Sec. 210.15:

a. paragraph (b)(2) is amended by removing the words ``menu records

as required under Sec. 210.10a and production and''; and

b. paragraph (b)(3) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable''.

Sec. 210.16 [Amended]

9. In Sec. 210.16, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing the

words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable,'' wherever they

appear.

Sec. 210.18 [Amended]

10. In Sec. 210.18:

a. paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is revised;

b. the heading of paragraph (g)(2) introductory text is amended by

removing the words ``food items/components as required by Program

regulations'' and adding in their place the words ``meal elements (food

items/components, menu items or other items, as applicable) as required

under Sec. 210.10'';

c. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) is amended by removing the words ``required

food items/components'' and adding in their place the words ``meal

elements (food items/components, menu items or other items, as

applicable) as required under Sec. 210.10'';

d. Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) is amended by removing the words ``the

required number of food items/components'' and adding in their place

the words ``the number of meal elements (food items/components, menu

items or other items, as applicable) as required under Sec. 210.10'';

e. Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) is amended by removing the words

``required food items/components'' and adding in their place the words

``meal elements (food items/components, menu items or other items, as

applicable) as required under Sec. 210.10'';

f. paragraph (h)(2) is amended by removing the words ``food items/

components in the quantities required under Sec. 210.10 or

Sec. 210.10a, in whichever is applicable'' and adding in their place

the words ``meal elements (food items/components, menu items or other

items, as applicable) as required under Sec. 210.10''; and

g. paragraph (i)(3)(ii) is amended by removing the words ``required

food items/components'' and adding in their place the words ``meal

elements (food items/components, menu items or other items, as

applicable) as required under Sec. 210.10''.

The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 210.18. Administrative reviews.

* * * * *

(b) Definitions. * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Performance Standard 2--Meal Elements. Lunches claimed for

[[Page 24705]]

reimbursement within the school food authority contain meal elements

(food items/components, menu items or other items, as applicable) as

required under Sec. 210.10.

* * * * *

11. In Sec. 210.19:

a. the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text is

amended by removing the reference to ``Sec. 210.10(o)'' and by adding

in its place a reference to ``Sec. 210.10(p)'', and by removing the

words ``or (d),'' and adding in their place the words ``, (d), or

(i)(1) or the procedures developed under Sec. 210.10(l),'';

b. the second sentence of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text is

amended by removing the words ``At a minimum, these evaluations shall

be conducted once every 5 years and'' and adding in their place the

words ``These evaluations'';

c. paragraph (a)(1) introductory text is further amended by adding

five sentences at the end;

d. paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), and (a)(1)(iv)

are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(v), and

(a)(1)(vi), respectively, and new paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(iv)

are added;

e. the first sentence of newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is

revised;

f. newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text is

revised;

g. paragraph (a)(3) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable,''; and

h. paragraph (c)(6)(i) is amended by removing the words ``food item

required under the meal pattern in Sec. 210.10a or the food-based menu

planning alternative in Sec. 210.10(k), whichever is applicable'' and

adding in their place the words ``meal element (food item/component,

menu item or other items, as applicable) as required under

Sec. 210.10''.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 210.19 Additional responsibilities.

(a) General Program management. * * *

(1) Compliance with nutrition standards.* * * At a minimum, the

State agency shall review at least one school for each type of menu

planning alternative used in the school food authority. Review activity

may be confined to the National School Lunch Program unless a menu

planning alternative is used exclusively in the School Breakfast

Program. The review must examine compliance with the nutrition

standards in Sec. 210.10(b) and Sec. 210.10(c), (d), (i)(1), or (l),

and Sec. 220.10 (a), (c), (e)(1), or (h), as appropriate. State

agencies are encouraged to review the School Breakfast Program as well

if the school food authority requires technical assistance from the

State agency to meet the nutrition standards or if corrective action is

needed. Such review shall determine compliance with the appropriate

requirements in Sec. 220.8 and may be done at the time of the initial

review or as part of a follow-up to assess compliance with the

nutrition standards.

(i) At a minimum, State agencies shall conduct evaluations of

compliance with the nutrition standards in Sec. 210.10(b) and

Sec. 210.10(c), (d), (i)(1), or (l), as appropriate, at least once

during each 5-year review cycle provided that each school food

authority is evaluated at least once every 6 years, except that the

first cycle shall begin July 1, 1996, and shall end on June 30, 2003.

The compliance evaluation for the nutrition standards shall be

conducted on the menu for any week of the current school year prior to

the month in which such evaluation is conducted. The week selected must

continue to represent the current menu planning system.

(ii) For school food authorities choosing the nutrient standard or

assisted nutrient standard menu planning alternatives provided in

Sec. 210.10(i), Sec. 210.10(j), or Sec. 220.8(e), or Sec. 220.8(f), or

developed under the procedures in Sec. 210.10(l) or Sec. 220.8(h), the

State agency shall assess the nutrient analysis to determine if the

school food authority is properly applying the methodology in

Sec. 220.8(e), or Sec. 220.8(f), or developed under the procedures in

Sec. 210.10(l) or Sec. 220.8(h), as appropriate.* * *

(iii) For school food authorities choosing the food-based menu

planning alternatives provided in Sec. 210.10(k) or Sec. 220.8(g) or

developed under the procedures in Sec. 210.10(l) or Sec. 220.8(h), the

State agency shall determine if the nutrition standards set forth in

Sec. 210.10(b) and Sec. 210.10(d) are met. The State agency shall

conduct a nutrient analysis in accordance with the procedures in

Sec. 210.10(i) or Sec. 220.8(e), as appropriate, except that the State

agency may:

* * * * *

(iv) For school food authorities following an alternate approach as

provided under Sec. 210.10(l) or Sec. 220.8(h) that does not allow for

use of the monitoring procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) or

(a)(1)(iii), the State agency shall monitor compliance following the

procedures developed in accordance with Sec. 210.10(l) or

Sec. 220.8(h), whichever is appropriate.

* * * * *

Appendix A--Amended

12. In Appendix A to Part 210--Alternate Foods for Meals:

a. under Enriched Macaroni Products with Fortified Protein,

paragraph 1.(a) is amended by removing the words ``or Sec. 210.10a,

whichever is applicable,'';

b. under Vegetable Protein Products, paragraph 1. introductory text

is amended by removing the words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is

applicable'';

c. under Vegetable Protein Products, paragraph 1.(d) is amended by

removing the words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'';

d. under Vegetable Protein Products, paragraph 1.(e) is amended by

removing the words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'';

e. under Vegetable Protein Products, paragraph 3. is amended by

removing the words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable''.

Appendix C--Amended

13. In Appendix C to Part 210-Child Nutrition Labeling Program:

a. paragraph 2.(a) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'';

b. paragraph 3.(c)(2) is amended by removing the words ``or

Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'' and by removing the words ``or

Sec. 220.8a, whichever is applicable'';

c. paragraph 6. introductory text is amended by removing the words

``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'' and by removing the words

``or Sec. 220.8a, whichever is applicable''.

PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 220.2 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 220.2:

a. paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words ``or Sec. 220.8a,

whichever is applicable,''; and

b. paragraph (t) is amended by removing the words ``or Sec. 220.8,

whichever is applicable,''.

Sec. 220.7 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 220.7, paragraph (e)(2) is amended by removing the words

``or Sec. 220.8a, whichever is applicable,''.

4. In Sec. 220.8:

a. paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the second occurrence of

the

[[Page 24706]]

word ``or'' and adding in its place a comma and by adding the words ``,

or (h)'' after the reference to ``(e)(1)'';

b. paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the second occurrence of

the word ``or'' and adding in its place the words ``or (h)'' after the

reference to ``(e)(1)'';

c. paragraph (a)(3) is revised;

d. paragraph (a)(4) is amended by removing the reference to

``1990'' and adding in its place a reference to ``1995'';

e. the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) is revised;

f. the first sentence of paragraph (a)(6) is amended by removing

the word ``or'' and adding in its place a comma and by adding the words

``or those developed under paragraph (h)'' after the reference to

``paragraph (e)(1)'' and the second sentence of paragraph (a)(6) is

amended by removing the third occurrence of the word ``or'' and adding

in its place a comma and by adding the words ``or those developed under

paragraph (h)'' after the reference to ``paragraph (e)(1)'';

g. the table in paragraph (b)(1) is revised;

h. the table in paragraph (b)(2) is revised;

i. paragraph (c) is revised;

j. the heading of paragraph (e)(4) and paragraph (e)(9) are amended

by removing the words ``National Nutrient Database'' and adding in

their place the words ``Child Nutrition Database'';

k. paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(8) are amended by removing the words

``National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition Programs''

wherever they appear and by adding the words ``Child Nutrition

Database'' in their place;

l. the heading of paragraph (g) is revised and introductory text is

added;

m. the introductory text of paragraph (g)(1) is amended by removing

the words ``in the table in paragraph (g)(2) of this section'' and

adding in their place the words ``either in the table in paragraph

(g)(2) or (g)(3) of this section, whichever is applicable'';

n. paragraph (g)(2) is revised;

o. paragraphs (h) through (m) are redesignated as paragraphs (i)

through (n), respectively, and a new paragraph (h) is added; and

p. in newly redesignated paragraph (n), the reference to ``1990''

is removed and a reference to ``1995'' is added in its place.

The additions and revisions are as follows:

Sec. 220.8 Nutrition standards for breakfast and menu planning

alternatives.

(a) Nutrition standards for breakfasts for children age 2 and over.

* * *

(3) The applicable recommendations of the 1995 Dietary Guidelines

for Americans which are: eat a variety of foods; limit total fat to 30

percent of calories; limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of

calories; choose a diet low in cholesterol; choose a diet with plenty

of grain products, vegetables, and fruits; choose a diet moderate in

salt and sodium; and choose a diet moderate in sugars.

* * * * *

(5) School food authorities have several alternatives for menu

planning in order to meet the requirements of this paragraph including

the appropriate nutrient and calorie levels: nutrient standard menu

planning as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section; assisted

nutrient standard menu planning as provided for in paragraph (f) of

this section; traditional food-based menu planning as provided for in

paragraph (g)(1) of this section; enhanced food-based menu planning as

provided for in paragraph (g)(2) of this section; or other menu

planning approaches as provided for in paragraph (h) of this section. *

* *

* * * * *

(b) Nutrient levels/nutrient analysis. (1) * * *

Minimum Requirements for Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts--Nutrient Analysis Alternatives (School Week

Averages)

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

Minimum requirements Optional

Nutrients and energy allowances -----------------------------------------------

Preschool Grades K-12 Grades 7-12

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

Energy allowances (calories).................................... 388 554 618

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy.......... (\1\) (\2\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy)........................................................ (\1\) (\3\) (\3\)

RDA for protein (g) 5 10 12

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

RDA for iron (mg)............................................... 2.5 3.0 3.4

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

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

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

(2) * * *

Optional Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts--Nutrient Analysis Alternatives (School Week Averages)

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

Ages 14 and

Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 3-6 Ages 7-10 Ages 11-13 above

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

Energy allowances (calories).................... 419 500 588 625

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy......................................... (\1\, \2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual

total food energy)............................. (\1\, \3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)

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

[[Page 24707]]

Vitamin C (mg).................................. 11.00 11.25 12.50 14.40

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

(c) Minimum nutrient levels for school breakfasts/food-based menu

planning alternatives. (1) Traditional food-based menu planning

alternative. For the purposes of the traditional food-based menu

planning alternative, as provided for in paragraph (g)(2) of this

section, the following chart provides the minimum levels, by grade

group, for calorie and nutrient levels for school breakfasts offered

over a school week:

Minimum Requirements for Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts--Traditional Food-Based Alternative (School Week

Averages)

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

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

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

Energy allowances (calories).................................... 325 388 554

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy.......... (\1\) (\1\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy)........................................................ (\1\) (\1\) (\3\)

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

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

RDA for iron (mg)............................................... 2.5 2.5 3.0

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

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

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

(2) Enhanced food-based menu planning alternative. For the purposes

of the enhanced food-based menu planning alternative, as provided for

in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the following chart provides the

minimum levels, by grade group, for calorie and nutrient levels for

school breakfasts offered over a school week:

Minimum Requirements for Nutrient Levels for School Breakfast--Enhanced Food-Based Alternative (School Week

Averages)

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

Required for Option for

Nutrients and energy allowances -----------------------------------------------

Preschool Grades K-12 Grades 7-12

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

Energy allowances (calories).................................... 388 554 618

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy)......... (\1\, \2\) (\2\) (\2\)

Total saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food

energy)........................................................ (\1\, \3\) (\3\) (\3\)

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

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

RDA for iron (mg)............................................... 2.5 3.0 3.4

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

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

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

\1\ The dietary guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age ``* * * children should gradually adopt a diet

that, by about 5 years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.''

\2\ Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.

\3\ Less than 10 percent over a school week.

* * * * *

(g) Food-based menu planning alternatives. School food authorities

may choose to plan menus using either the traditional or enhanced food-

based menu planning alternatives. Under these alternatives, specific

food components shall be offered as provided in either paragraphs

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section, whichever is applicable, and in

paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of this section, as appropriate.

* * * * *

(2) Minimum quantities-food-based menu planning alternatives. (i)

At a minimum, schools using the traditional food-based menu planning

alternative shall serve breakfasts in the quantities provided in the

following chart:

Minimum Requirements--Traditional Food-Based Menu Planning Alternative

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

Meal component Ages 1-2 Ages 3, 4, and 5 Grades K-12

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

Milk (Fluid) (As a beverage, on 4 fl. oz............. 6 fl. oz............. 8 fl. oz.

cereal or both).

Juice/Fruit/Vegetable: Fruit and/ \1/4\ cup............ \1/2\ cup............ \1/2\ cup.

or vegetable; or full-strength

fruit juice or vegetable juice.

[[Page 24708]]

Select One Serving From Each of

the Following Components or Two

From One Component:

Grains/Breads: one of the

following or an equivalent

combination:

Whole-grain or enriched bread. \1/2\ slice.......... \1/2\ slice.......... 1 slice.

Whole-grain or enriched \1/2\ serving........ \1/2\ serving........ 1 serving.

biscuit, roll, muffin, etc.

Whole-grain, enriched or \1/4\ cup or \1/3\ \1/3\ cup or \1/2\ \3/4\ cup or 1 oz.

fortified cereal. oz.. oz..

Meat or Meat Alternates:

Meat/poulty or fish........... \1/2\. oz............ \1/2\. oz............ 1 oz.

Cheese........................ \1/2\. oz............ \1/2\. oz............ 1 oz.

Egg (large)................... \1/2\................ \1/2\................ \1/2\.

Peanut butter or other nut or 1 Tbsp............... 1 Tbsp............... 2 Tbsp.

seed butters.

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

Nuts and/or seeds (as listed \1/2\. oz............ \1/2\. oz............ 1 oz.

in program guidance).\1\.

Yogurt, plain or flavored, 2 oz. or \1/4\ cup... 2 oz. or \1/4\ cup... 4 oz. or \1/2\ cup.

unsweetened or sweetened.

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

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

(ii) At a minimum, schools using the enhanced food-based menu

planning alternative shall serve breakfasts in the quantities provided

in the following chart:

Minimum Requirements--Enhanced Food-Based Menu Planning Alternative

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

Required for Operation for

Meal Component -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Milk (Fluid) (As a beverage, on 4 fl. oz.......... 6 fl. oz.......... 8 fl. oz.......... 8 fl. oz.

cereal or both).

Juice/Fruit/Vegetable: Fruit and/ \1/4\ cup......... \1/2\ cup......... \1/2\ cup......... \1/2\ cup.

or vegetable; or full-strenth

fruit juice or vegetable juice.

Select One Serving From Each of

the Following Components or Two

From One Component:

Grain/Breads: one of the

following or an equivalent

combination:

Whole-grain or enriched \1/2\ slice....... \1/2\ slice....... 1 slice........... 1 slice.

bread.

Whole-grain or enriched \1/2\ serving..... \1/2\ serving..... 1 serving......... 1 serving.

biscuit, roll, muffin, etc.

Whole-grain, enriched or \1/4\ cup or \1/3\ \1/3\ cup or \1/2\ \3/4\ cup of 1 oz. \3/4\ cup or 1 oz.

fortfied cereal. oz. oz. Plus an

additional

serving of one of

the Grains/Breads

above.

Meat or Meat Alternates:

Meat/poulty or fish............. \1/2\ oz.......... \1/2\ oz.......... 1 oz.............. 1 oz.

Chesse.......................... \1/2\ oz.......... \1/2\ oz.......... 1 oz.............. 1 oz.

Egg (large)..................... \1/2\............. \1/2\............. \1/2\............. \1/2\.

Peanut butter or other nut or 1 Tbs............. 1 Tbs............. 2 Tbs............. 2 Tbs.

sed butters.

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

Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in \1/2\ oz.......... \1/2\ oz.......... 1 oz.............. 1 oz.

program guidance) \1\.

Yogrut, plain or flavored, 2 oz. or \1/4\ cup 2 oz. or \1/4\ cup 4 oz. or \1/2\ cup 4 oz. or \1/2\

unsweetened or sweetened. cup.

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

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

* * * * *

(h) Other menu planning alternatives.

(1) Modification. Under the traditional or enhanced food-based menu

planning alternatives, school food authorities may, if only one age or

grade is outside the established levels, use the levels for the

majority of children for both portions and the Recommended Dietary

Allowances and breakfast energy allowances. State agencies may require

prior approval for adopting this alternative, may establish guidelines

for its adoption, or may permit its adoption without prior approval.

(2) Major changes or new alternatives: use and approval. Subject to

the requirements of paragraphs (h)(3) of this section, school food

authorities or State agencies may modify one of the menu planning

alternatives established in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section

or may develop their own menu planning approach. Any such alternate

menu planning approaches shall be in writing for review and monitoring

purposes, as applicable. No formal plan is required; the written

alternate approach may be in the form of guidance, protocol, or the

like. The alternate approach shall address how the provisions in

paragraph (h)(3) shall be met.

(i) Any school food authority developed menu planning approach

[[Page 24709]]

shall have prior State agency review and approval.

(ii) Except as noted in paragraph (h)(2)(iii), any State agency-

developed menu planning alternative shall have prior FNS approval.

(iii) Any State agency developed alternative is not subject to FNS

review if:

(A) Five or more school food authorities within the State use the

approach;

(B) The State agency maintains on-going oversight of the operation

and evaluation of the alternative menu planning approach including

making adjustments to the approach's policies and procedures, as

necessary, to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions in

paragraph (h)(3) of this section as needed; and

(C) The State agency issues an announcement notifying the public

concerning the alternate menu planning approach prior to the

implementation of the approach by any school food authority; such

announcement shall be issued in a manner consistent with State

procedures for public notification.

(3) Major changes or new alternatives: required elements. The

following requirements shall be met by any alternate menu planning

approach:

(i) Service of fluid milk, as provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this

section;

(ii) The nutrition standards in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of

this section. Any alternate approach shall indicate the age/grade

groups to be served and how such approach is designed to meet these

requirements for those age/grade groups.

(iii) The requirements for competitive foods in Sec. 220.12 and

appendix B to this part;

(iv) For alternate food-based menu planning approaches, the

requirements for crediting food items and products provided for in

paragraphs (g)(2) and (i) of this section, in the appendices to this

part, in Sec. 210.10(k)(3) through (k)(5), Sec. 210.10 (m) and in the

instructions and guidance issued by FNS;

(v) Identification of a reimbursable meal at the point of service.

To the extent possible, the procedures provided in paragraph (e)(2)(i)

of this section for nutrient standard or assisted nutrient standard-

type menu planning approaches or in paragraph (g) of this section for

food-based-type menu planning approaches shall be followed. In

addition, any instructions or guidance issued by FNS that further

defines the elements of a reimbursable meal shall be followed when

using the existing regulatory provisions. Any alternate approach that

deviates from the provisions in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or paragraph (g) of

this section shall indicate what constitutes a reimbursable meal,

including the number and type of items (and, if applicable, the

quantities for these items) which comprise the meal, and h

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.