Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements, 63775-63794 [2018-26762]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63775
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 238
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
6 CFR Chapter I
Temporary Extension of Applicability
of Regulations Governing Conduct on
Federal Property
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notification of temporary
extension of the applicability of
regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Secretary of Homeland
Security, pursuant to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, has temporarily
extended the applicability and
enforcement of certain regulations
governing conduct on Federal property
that is under the administrative
jurisdiction and control of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) along the
southwest border. This temporary
administrative extension enables DHS to
protect and secure Federal property
along the southwest border within the
control of CBP’s San Diego Field Office,
Tucson Field Office, Laredo Field Office
and El Paso Field Office, and to carry
out DHS’s statutory obligations to
protect and secure the nation’s borders.
The Federal property subject to this
notice is limited to the specific
geographic area within the
administrative control of CBP along the
length of the U.S. border with Mexico.
DATES: Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d),
the extension began on November 17,
2018 and will continue until May 31,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua A. Vayer, 703–235–6082,
joshua.s.vayer@hq.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Background
Pursuant to section 1706 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25,
2002), as codified at 40 U.S.C. 1315, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
Secretary of Homeland Security is
responsible for protecting the buildings,
grounds, and property owned, occupied,
or secured by the Federal government
(including any agency, instrumentality,
or wholly owned or mixed ownership
corporation thereof) and the persons on
the property. To carry out this mandate,
the Department is authorized to enforce
the applicable Federal regulations for
the protection of persons and property
set forth in 41 CFR part 102–74, subpart
C.1 These regulations govern conduct on
Federal property and set forth the
relevant criminal penalties. Although
these regulations apply to all property
under the authority of the General
Services Administration and to all
person entering in or on such property,2
the Secretary of Homeland Security is
authorized pursuant to 40 U.S.C.
1315(d)(2)(A) to extend the applicability
of these regulations to any property
owned or occupied by the Federal
government and to enforce them on
such property.
Temporary Administrative Extension of
Applicability of Regulations Governing
Conduct on Federal Property Under the
Administrative Jurisdiction and Control
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Along the Southwest Border
Throughout October and November
2018, a large group of Central American
migrants is traveling as part of a caravan
toward the Southwest Border of the
United States. Acts of violence against
immigration security services have been
reported. As part of Department-wide
efforts to mitigate security challenges
which may arise as the migrants
approach the Southwest Border of the
United States, including the possibility
of access to Federal property by
unauthorized individuals, planning for
an appropriate response is warranted.
Specifically, this action will afford
Federal law enforcement officers a wide
range of enforcement tools to enforce
Federal rules pertaining to individuals’
conduct on the Federal property. The
affected Federal property is along the
Southwest Border of the United States
and within the control of CBP’s San
Diego Field Office, Tucson Field Office,
1 Although these regulations were issued prior to
the Homeland Security Act, per section 1512 of the
Act, these regulations remain the relevant
regulations for purposes of the protection and
administration of property owned or occupied by
the Federal government.
2 See 41 CFR 102–74.365.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Laredo Field Office, and El Paso Field
Office including but not limited to ports
of entry, access roads, barriers, parking
structures, and buildings temporarily
erected to support processing of the
large group of migrants. The Federal
property that is subject to this notice is
limited to the specific geographic area
within the U.S. Border with Mexico.
Specifically, I temporarily extended the
applicability, allowing the enforcement,
of the regulations in 41 CFR part 102–
74, subpart C, for the protection and
administration of property owned or
occupied by the Federal Government
and persons on the above-specified
property along the Southwest Border of
the United States.
The regulations in 41 CFR part 102–
74, subpart C, will remain applicable
and enforceable at these locations along
the Southwest Border of the United
States for six months after the date of
my signature of this notice.
Dated: November 17, 2018.
Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018–26812 Filed 12–11–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, and 226
[FNS–2017–0021]
RIN 0584–AE53
Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities
for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements
Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule will codify,
with some extensions, three menu
planning flexibilities temporarily
established by the interim final rule of
the same title published November 30,
2017. First, it will broaden the milk
options in the National School Lunch
Program and School Breakfast Program
by allowing local operators to
permanently offer flavored, low-fat
milk. For consistency across nutrition
programs, it will also allow flavored,
low-fat milk in the Special Milk
Program for Children and in the Child
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63776
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
and Adult Care Food Program for
participants ages 6 and older. Second,
this final rule will require that half of
the weekly grains in the school lunch
and breakfast menu be whole grain-rich,
thus ending the need for the exemption
process. Third, it will provide schools
in the lunch and breakfast programs
more time for gradual sodium reduction
by retaining Sodium Target 1 through
the end of school year (SY) 2023–2024,
continuing to Target 2 in SY 2024–2025,
and eliminating the Final Target that
would have gone into effect in SY 2022–
2023. By codifying these changes, USDA
acknowledges the persistent menu
planning challenges experienced by
some schools, and affirms its
commitment to give schools more
control over food service decisions and
greater ability to offer wholesome and
appealing meals that reflect local
preferences.
This rule is effective February
11, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina
Namian, Chief, School Programs
Branch, Policy and Program
Development Division, Food and
Nutrition Service, telephone: 703–305–
2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
I. Background
This final rule will increase flexibility
in the Child Nutrition Program
requirements related to milk, grains, and
sodium effective SY 2019–2020, which
begins July 1, 2019. This rule is the
culmination of the rulemaking process
initiated by the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) following the
Secretary’s May 1, 2017, Proclamation
affirming USDA’s commitment to assist
schools in overcoming operational
challenges related to the school meals
regulations implemented in 2012.
In 2012, USDA updated the National
School Lunch (NSLP) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP) meal
requirements to reflect the latest Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, as required
by the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act in Section 9(a)(4), 42
U.S.C. 1758(a)(4). The implementing
regulations 1 increased the availability
of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and
fat-free and low-fat milk in school
meals; required sodium and saturated
fat limits, and zero trans-fat in the
weekly school menu; and established
calorie ranges intended to meet part of
the age-appropriate calorie needs of
children. The updated requirements
1 Final
rule Nutrition Standards in the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs (77
FR 4088, January 26, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
were largely based on recommendations
issued by the Health and Medicine
Division of The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(formerly, the Institute of Medicine).
With regard to the milk, grains, and
sodium requirements, the regulations
implemented in 2012:
• Allowed flavoring only in fat-free
milk in the NSLP and SBP;
• Required that half of the grains
offered in the NSLP be whole grain-rich
in SY 2012–2013 and one year later in
the SBP; and required that effective SY
2014–2015, all grains offered in both
programs be whole grain-rich (meaning
the grain product contains at least 50
percent whole grains and the remaining
grain content of the product must be
enriched); and
• Required schools participating in
the NSLP and SBP to gradually reduce
the sodium content of meals offered on
average over the school week by
meeting progressively lower sodium
targets over a 10-year period.
Before and after the regulations were
implemented in 2012, USDA offered
guidance, technical assistance
resources, and tailored training
programs for Program operators in
collaboration with the Institute for Child
Nutrition (formerly, National Food
Service Management Institute). Program
advocates, the food industry, and other
stakeholders also collaborated with
USDA in different ways to assist
operators with implementation. This
enabled many operators to adopt most
of the changes to the NSLP and SBP
meal patterns. Child nutrition and
public health advocates who submitted
public comments noted that children’s
eating habits are improving and student
participation in the school meal
programs is increasing in many school
districts. USDA acknowledges the
significant efforts and progress these
schools have achieved. However, the
changes are only truly successful when
all of America’s school children eat and
enjoy the school meals.
While some Program operators have
had great success in implementing the
updated nutrition standards in a way
that encourages healthy eating and
participation, some school meal
programs require additional flexibility
and support from USDA to meet this
goal. USDA continues to hear from
Program operators about persistent
challenges with the milk, grains, and
sodium requirements. The challenges
identified by operators include
decreased student participation and/or
meal consumption, difficulties
preparing whole grain-rich food items,
and limited ability to offer appealing
meals with lower sodium content.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Secretary of Agriculture
acknowledged these challenges in the
May 1, 2017, Proclamation and
committed to working with stakeholders
to ensure that the milk, grains, and
sodium requirements are practical and
result in wholesome and appealing
meals. Subsequently, and consistent
with the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115–31), USDA
issued policy guidance (SP 32–2017,
May 22, 2017, School Meal Flexibilities
for School Year 2017–2018) providing
milk, whole grains, and sodium
flexibilities for SY 2017–2018 while
taking steps to formulate regulatory
relief in these areas. USDA’s policy
guidance was followed by the interim
final rule Child Nutrition Programs:
Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and
Sodium Requirements (82 FR 56703,
November 30, 2017), which established
regulations that extend school meal
flexibilities through SY 2018–2019 and
apply the flavored milk flexibility to the
Special Milk Program for Children
(SMP) and the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) for participants
age 6 and older in SY 2018–2019 only.
As a result, the regulations applicable in
SY 2018–2019 provide relief in three
specific areas while retaining other
essential meal requirements (e.g., fruit
and vegetable quantities, fat restrictions,
and calorie ranges) that contribute to
wholesome meals. In brief, for SY 2018–
2019, the regulations:
• Provide NSLP and SBP operators
the option to offer flavored low-fat (1
percent fat) milk with the meal and as
a beverage for sale during the school
day, and apply the flexibility in the
SMP and CACFP for participants age 6
and older;
• Extend the State agencies’ option to
allow individual school food authorities
to include grains that are not whole
grain-rich in the weekly NSLP and SBP
menus; and
• Retain Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP
and SBP.
As discussed in the interim final rule
preamble (82 FR 56703, November 30,
2017), there have been numerous
administrative and legislative actions
over the last few years to provide
flexibility to schools with regard to the
whole grain-rich and sodium
requirements.2 The interim final rule
extended the flexibilities already
allowed through policy guidance (SP
32–2017, May 22, 2017, School Meal
Flexibilities for School Year 2017–2018)
and previous appropriations legislation
2 See discussion in the interim final rule Child
Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium Requirements (82 FR 56703,
November 30, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(Pub. L. 112–55, Pub. L. 113–235, Pub.
L. 114–113, Pub. L. 115–31, and Pub. L.
115–56). In addition, the interim final
rule allowed milk flexibility, without
the need to demonstrate hardship, in all
Child Nutrition Programs. Furthermore,
the rule asked the public to submit
comments on the long-term availability
of the three meal flexibilities.
As a key part of USDA’s regulatory
reform agenda, this final rule seeks to
ensure that school meals regulations
work for all operators, while reflecting
the recommendations of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, as Section
9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) requires. All
participating children will continue to
have access to fruit, an array of
vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free
and low-fat milk, and school meals will
continue to provide appropriate calorie
ranges, limited saturated fat, and no
added trans-fat. The targeted
modifications in this final rule, effective
July 1, 2019 (SY 2019–2020), apply only
to the milk, whole grain-rich, and
sodium requirements. This rule
demonstrates USDA’s commitment to
alleviate regulatory burdens, provides
school nutrition professionals the
flexibility and predictability they
repeatedly request to successfully
operate the Child Nutrition Programs,
and ensures that Program regulations
are practical for all local providers. This
rule will help Program operators
provide wholesome and appealing
meals that reflect the Dietary Guidelines
and meet the needs and preferences of
their communities. It is important to
note that schools are not required to
change their menus and can choose
whether or not to use the flexibilities
this rule provides.
The public comments that helped
inform this final rule are discussed next.
II. Overview of Public Comments and
USDA Response
USDA appreciates the significant
public interest in the interim final rule
Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities
for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements (82 FR 56703, November
30, 2017). During the 60-day comment
period (November 30, 2017—January 29,
2018), USDA received a total of 86,247
comments, including 53 non-germane
comments and 3 duplicates. All
comments, except the non-germane and
duplicate comments, are posted online
at www.regulations.gov. See docket
FNS–2017–0021, Child Nutrition:
Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and
Sodium Requirements.
USDA worked in collaboration with a
data analysis company to code and
analyze the public comments using a
commercial web-based software product
and obtained data showing support for
or opposition to each meal flexibility.
The Summary of Public Comments
report is available under the Supporting
Documentation tab in docket FNS–
2017–0021.
The vast majority of the total public
submissions were form letters. There
were 16 form letter campaigns, which
comprised 84,453 form letter copies.
These comments were submitted by
individuals participating in letter
campaigns organized primarily by
MomsRising, the American Heart
Association Sodium Reduction
Initiative, Salud America!, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists. These
form letters were mostly from parents
and other individuals urging USDA to
63777
retain strong nutrition requirements for
school meals.
In addition to the form letter copies,
there were 1,738 unique submissions
that provided substantive comments on
issues specific to the three menu
planning flexibilities and were therefore
very useful in informing the
development of this final rule. These
unique comments, which included the
master letter for each of the form letter
campaigns, reflected a wide range of
opinions—support, opposition, and
mixed comments on each of the
flexibilities. These comments were
submitted by individuals, school district
personnel, students, healthcare
professionals, parents/guardians,
dietitians/nutritionists, policy advocacy
organizations, professional associations,
State agency directors, trade/industry
associations, nutrition/anti-hunger
advocates, school nutrition advocacy
organizations, academics/researchers,
and the food industry. For example,
stakeholders that submitted unique
comments include: the School Nutrition
Association, State agencies, School
Superintendents Association, Council of
Great City Schools, American Public
Health Association, American Heart
Association, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, MomsRising, Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, Pew
Charitable Trusts, Food Research &
Action Center, American Commodity
Distribution Association, Grocery
Manufacturers Association, General
Mills, and Mars, Incorporated.
The following tables show tallies of
the total and unique comments received
for each of the meal flexibilities
addressed in the interim final rule:
MILK FLEXIBILITY
Count of milk
comments
received
Commenter position
Percent of all comments received
(86,247)
Count of unique
milk comments
Percent of
unique milk
comments
(181)
Support ...................................................
Oppose ...................................................
Mixed ......................................................
36
5,441
69
Less than 1 ...........................................
6 ............................................................
Less than 1 ...........................................
36
84
61
19.9
46.4
33.7
Milk Submissions ............................
5,546
6 ............................................................
181
100
WHOLE GRAIN-RICH FLEXIBILITY
Count of grains
comments
received
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Commenter position
Percent of all comments received
(86,247)
Count of unique
grains comments
Percent of
unique grain
comments
(217)
Support ...................................................
Oppose ...................................................
Mixed ......................................................
43
83,767
523
Less than 1 ...........................................
97 ..........................................................
Less than 1 ...........................................
43
122
52
19.8
56.2
24.0
Grains Submissions ........................
84,333
98 ..........................................................
217
100
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63778
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
SODIUM FLEXIBILITY
Count of sodium
comments
received
Commenter position
Percent of all comments received
(86,247)
Count of unique
sodium comments
Percent of
unique sodium
comments
(229)
Support ...................................................
Oppose ...................................................
Mixed ......................................................
550
83,152
18
Less than 1 ...........................................
96 ..........................................................
Less than 1 ...........................................
79
132
18
34.5
57.6
7.9
Sodium Submissions ......................
83,720
97 ..........................................................
229
100
In general, commenters in favor of the
flexibilities argued that these provide
more menu planning options for schools
and thus enhance their ability to offer
wholesome and appealing meals. They
stated that the flexibilities will lead to
increased meal consumption and better
health outcomes for students. The
School Nutrition Association,
representing 57,000 members, urged
USDA to adopt a permanent solution to
operational challenges rather than
temporary rules and annual waivers.
Commenters opposed to the
flexibilities argued that these are not
needed because most schools report
being in compliance with the meal
patterns, and the flexibilities could
restrain schools’ progress in increasing
whole grains and reducing sodium
intake. Many expressed interest in
retaining the meal patterns as
implemented in 2012, and stated their
concern about children’s continued
access to wholesome school meals and
the need to help children develop
positive dietary habits for life.
In addition to specific comments
about the milk, whole grain-rich, and
sodium flexibilities, commenters
provided general feedback on the
interim final rule. The following table
shows tallies of the general comments
received in support of and against the
meal flexibilities addressed in the
interim final rule. Many of the opposing
comments were submitted as part of the
form letter campaigns described above:
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON MILK, WHOLE GRAIN-RICH, AND SODIUM FLEXIBILITIES
Percent of
all comments
received
(86,247)
Count of
comments
received
Themes
General Support
Positive health impacts for children ................................................................................................................
Increase meal consumption and decrease food waste ..................................................................................
Relieve industry of meal pattern compliance challenges (e.g. product development) ..................................
Reduce compliance burden for Program operators .......................................................................................
Other general support .....................................................................................................................................
20
90
4
20
60
Less
Less
Less
Less
Less
than
than
than
than
than
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
General Opposition
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Negative health impacts for children ..............................................................................................................
Negative impacts on children’s ability to access healthy meals ....................................................................
Flexibilities are not needed (e.g. widespread compliance with existing standards) ......................................
Inconsistent with Dietary Guidelines for Americans .......................................................................................
Other general opposition ................................................................................................................................
After careful consideration of all
stakeholders’ comments, USDA believes
that school nutrition operators have
made the case that this final rule’s
targeted regulatory flexibility is
practical and necessary for efficient
Program operation. The targeted
regulatory flexibility will improve
student participation without a
detrimental effect on the overall quality
of the meals offered to children. Some
commenters opposed to the flexibilities
voiced concerns about the potential
impact of the flexibilities on various
segments of the student population.
USDA is addressing these concerns
separately in the Civil Rights Impact
Analysis, which is available under the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
Supporting Documentation tab in
docket FNS–2017–0021.
The following is a high-level
summary of the flexibilities as stated in
the interim final rule (82 FR 56703,
November 30, 2017), the key concerns
and arguments expressed by
commenters, and USDA’s response.
Miscellaneous comments regarding food
quantities, meal costs, calorie limits,
and other topics unrelated to the
flexibilities in the interim final rule are
not discussed in this preamble, but are
included in the Summary of Public
Comments report.
Prior to publication of the interim
final rule, USDA received 580 postcards
expressing opposition to the flexibilities
as stated in the Secretary’s May 1, 2017,
Proclamation. These postcards were not
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6,830
1,190
83,080
260
290
8.
1.4.
96.
Less than 1.
Less than 1.
submitted in response to the interim
final rule and, therefore, were not
included in the comment analysis or as
part of the public record for this
rulemaking. They would not, in any
event, alter the agency’s final
conclusions herein.
Milk Flexibility
In SY 2018–2019, the interim final
rule:
• Allows schools to offer flavored,
low-fat milk in the NSLP (including as
a beverage for sale during the school
day) and the SBP (7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i);
7 CFR 210.11(m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii) and
(m)(3)(ii); and 7 CFR 220.8(d));
• Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the
Special Milk Program for Children
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(SMP) for children ages 6 and older (7
CFR 215.7a(a)(3)); and
• Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the
Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP) for children ages 6 and older
and adults (7 CFR 226.20(a)(1)(iii) and
(iv); and 7 CFR 226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Comments in Support
Commenters in support of the milk
flexibility included individuals, a
school nutrition organization, State
agencies, food manufacturers, and trade
associations. Supporters generally
expressed concern related to the decline
in children’s milk consumption. They
argued that allowing flavored, low-fat
milk will provide schools more menu
planning options, promote students’
milk consumption, and lead to better
health outcomes.
A nutritionist, healthcare
professional, and food manufacturer
stated that allowing flavored, low-fat
milk will increase milk consumption
and result in greater intake of essential
nutrients such as vitamin D,
magnesium, and calcium. A healthcare
professional and members of academia
stated that the minor increase in calories
from flavored, low-fat milk could be
offset with appropriate menu planning.
A dairy trade association asserted that
the net increase in calories between fatfree and low-fat, flavored milk is small
due to progress made by dairy
processors in reducing the calories in
flavored milk. According to the
commenter, milk processors have
reduced the calorie and added sugar
content of flavored milk between SY
2006–2007 and SY 2015–2016 by more
than 9 grams per serving (or 55 percent)
in chocolate milk produced for the
school market.
A State agency suggested that the
flexibility should be offered across all
Federal Child Nutrition Programs for
consistency. A few commenters offered
suggestions unrelated to the milk
flexibility, such as allowing schools to
offer non-dairy milk options, and
eliminating all fat limits on fluid milk
offered in schools.
Comments in Opposition
Commenters opposed to the milk
flexibility included parents and
individuals, public health practitioners,
and nutrition advocates. These
commenters generally expressed health
concerns related to added sugar in
flavored milk. They argued that offering
flavored, low-fat milk contradicts expert
nutrition recommendations and could
lead to increased sugar, fat, and calorie
intake by children in the near and long
term. They argued that schools offering
flavored, low-fat milk may have to offer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
less food to offset the extra calories
associated with this option, and said
that school meals with flavored low-fat
milk could exceed the weekly calorie
ranges while offering no additional
nutritional benefit. Others stated that
the milk flexibility is unnecessary
because students seem to accept
unflavored, low-fat milk and
unflavored/flavored, fat-free milk.
Several commenters argued that the
milk flexibility as stated in the interim
final rule is inconsistent with
congressional intent because it does not
require school districts to demonstrate a
reduction in student milk consumption
or an increase in school milk waste,
which is specified in Section 747(c) of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2017.
A policy advocacy organization
argued that, because milk is consumed
so frequently by children, restricting
flavor to fat-free milk helps decrease the
amount of saturated fat in children’s
diets. The commenter also commended
USDA for continuing to prohibit
flavored milk for children under six
years old.
A few individuals and public
advocacy organizations also opposed
allowing flavored, low-fat milk as a
competitive beverage for sale in schools.
They stated that, because schools are
largely prohibited from selling most
sugar-sweetened beverages on campus
during the school day, there is no longer
a need to offer flavored milk as an
appealing option relative to other
beverages with higher sugar content.
Mixed Response
A few commenters expressed
conditional support or opposition, or
offered suggestions for improving the
interim final rule. For example, a State
agency in favor of the milk flexibility
recommended that USDA include a
requirement that at least one type of
unflavored milk be available at the meal
service.
Several commenters opposed to the
milk flexibility recommended that if
USDA allows flavored, low-fat milk, a
calorie limit of no more than 130
calories per 8 ounce serving should be
established, consistent with the Robert
Wood Johnson’s Healthy Eating
Research Healthier Beverage Guidelines.
A few individuals and school district
personnel suggested that USDA allow
reduced fat (2%) milk or whole milk for
health reasons rather than provide
flexibility to offer flavored, low-fat or
non-fat milk.
USDA Response
Beginning SY 2019–2020, this final
rule will provide NSLP and SBP
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63779
operators with the option to offer
flavored, low-fat milk and require that
unflavored milk be offered at each meal
service. For consistency, the flavored,
low-fat milk option will be extended to
beverages for sale during the school day,
and will also apply in the SMP and
CACFP for participants ages 6 and older.
We recognize that regulatory
consistency across programs, a longtime practice at USDA, facilitates
program administration and operation at
the State and local levels, fosters
customer support, and meets customers’
expectations. The Summer Food Service
Program (SFSP) currently allows
flavored, low-fat milk with summer
meals so this rule makes no change to
milk service in the SFSP.
By broadening the flavored milk
choices in the Child Nutrition Programs,
USDA seeks to remove regulatory
restrictions that may hinder milk
consumption. USDA’s decision to
expand the milk choices is based on
stakeholders’ concerns over decreasing
milk consumption in the U.S.
population. Data from USDA’s
Economic Research Service shows a
decrease in fluid milk consumption
from 197 pounds per person in 2000 to
154 pounds per person in 2016.3
Chobani, General Mills, and the Grocery
Manufacturers Association cited this
data in their comments. Commenters
suggested that allowing flavored low-fat
milk, a popular item among children,
could help improve children’s
consumption of milk, an important
source of calcium, vitamin D (for
products fortified with vitamin D), and
potassium. Further, commenters such as
the National Milk Producers Federation
and the International Dairy Foods
Association noted that milk processors
have significantly reduced the calorie
and sugar content of flavored milk in
recent years. Commenters noted that
flavoring and a moderate amount of
sweetener increases palatability,
without compromising the positive
nutritional impacts of milk
consumption.
For operational efficiency, operators
will be allowed to serve flavored low-fat
milk without the need to demonstrate
hardship. This will relieve schools from
submitting written justification and
evidence (e.g., meal count records,
photos, etc.) to the State agency to
demonstrate financial hardship, such as
a drop in meal counts or an increase in
food waste. USDA is removing this
operational burden for State and local
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service. Dairy products: Per capita
consumption, United States (Annual). September
2017. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/dairy-data/.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
63780
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
operators to streamline procedures
given the interest in this milk option.
For SY 2017–2018, a total of 578 school
food authorities (about 3 percent of all
school food authorities operating the
school meal programs) submitted
flavored, low-fat milk exemption
requests based on hardship, and State
agencies approved 562 of those requests.
Eliminating the need to demonstrate
hardship is consistent with the
underlying statutory authority. The
provision cited by commenters, Section
747(c) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017, expires with
the 2017–2018 school year, whereas this
rule is effective with the 2019–2020
school year. Further, under section
9(a)(2) of the National School Lunch
Act, students must be provided with a
variety of fluid milk and milk may be
flavored or unflavored; there is no
statutory requirement to demonstrate
hardship in order to serve low-fat,
flavored milk.
A comment from a State agency
recommended that the milk flexibility
include the requirement that operators
offer unflavored milk at each meal
service, in addition to any flavored milk
offered. USDA agrees with this
recommendation. Therefore, upon
implementation of this rule, NSLP and
SBP operators that choose to offer
flavored milk must also offer unflavored
milk (fat-free or low-fat) at the same
meal service. This requirement will
ensure that milk variety in the NSLP
and SBP is not limited to flavored milk
choices. It is expected to help schools
that choose to offer flavored milk in
their menus stay within the weekly
dietary specifications. USDA believes
that most schools would continue to
offer unflavored milk at each meal
service to meet parents’ expectations,
even if offering unflavored milk was not
a requirement.
USDA recognizes the importance of
having unflavored milk as a choice for
students at each lunch and breakfast
service. Many comments from parents,
public health practitioners, and
nutrition advocates voiced concerns
over added sugars in the school meals
and expressed a strong interest in
retaining children’s access to unflavored
milk. We are aware that parents may
want their children to drink unflavored
milk at lunch and breakfast (e.g., with
breakfast cereal). In addition, many
State agencies have promoted
unflavored milk in the NSLP and SBP
as every edition of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans since 1980
has recommended reducing sugar
intake. We note that the requirement to
ensure that unflavored milk is available
on the school menu will not apply in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
the NSLP afterschool snack service, the
SMP, or the CACFP consistent with
existing Program requirements. These
meal services do not have a requirement
to offer a variety of fluid milk as they
are smaller in size and resources than
the lunch and breakfast services.
Some commenters recommended
calorie limits for individual servings of
flavored, low-fat milk (no more than 130
calories per 8 ounce serving). Since the
NSLP and SBP calorie limits apply to
the meals offered on average over the
school week, this final rule will not set
calorie limits for individual servings of
flavored, low-fat milk. However, school
food authorities that choose to offer
flavored, low-fat milk are encouraged to
obtain relevant information, such as the
Robert Wood Johnson’s Healthy Eating
Research Healthier Beverage Guidelines,
to inform procurement decisions. In
addition, school food authorities that
choose to offer flavored, low-fat milk
should plan menus carefully to ensure
that the weekly meals stay within the
required calorie and saturated fat limits,
and consult with their State agency as
necessary to make proper menu
adjustments.
Some commenters stated that the milk
flexibility is unnecessary because most
students seem to have accepted the 2012
provision that limits flavor to fat-free
milk. While USDA acknowledges that
many school food authorities have
incorporated the 2012 meal patterns,
USDA agrees with the Program
operators who commented that
expanding milk choices will likely
improve student participation in the
school meals programs and increase
milk consumption. Offering flavored,
low-fat milk expands the options
available to schools to meet the milk
requirement. Schools can choose to
pursue this flavored milk option, or not,
based on local preference. USDA
encourages parents and students to
provide feedback to their school food
service operators regarding the menus
and food products offered to students at
lunch and breakfast (see existing
provision at 7 CFR 210.12(a)).
The local school wellness policy, 7
CFR 210.31, also provides students,
parents and interested community
members an important opportunity to
influence the school nutrition
environment at large. In addition, as
allowed in 7 CFR 210.19(e), State
agencies have discretion to set stricter
requirements that are not inconsistent
with the minimum nutrition standards
for school meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will
amend the following milk provisions
effective SY 2019–2020:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 7 CFR
210.11(m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii) and
(m)(3)(ii));
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(d));
• SMP (7 CFR 215.7(a)(3)); and
• CACFP (7 CFR 226.20(a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) and 7 CFR 226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The interim final rule provides State
agencies through SY 2018–2019
discretion to grant exemptions to the
whole grain-rich requirement to school
food authorities that demonstrate
hardship. School food authorities
receiving an exemption must offer at
least half of the weekly grains as whole
grain-rich. (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B)
and 7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
Comments in Support
Several commenters, including a food
industry association, school district
personnel, and individual commenters,
reasoned that whole grain-rich
exemptions should be allowed because
some products (e.g., pasta, bread, sushi
rice, tortillas, and biscuits) and regional
products (e.g., grits in the South), are
not acceptable to students in a whole
grain-rich form. Other commenters,
including food industry commenters, a
healthcare professional, and an
individual from academia, stated that it
is necessary to allow the food industry
sufficient time to develop solutions to
the whole grain-rich challenges and
provide operators more time to address
preparation issues and develop menus
and recipes that are acceptable to
students. Some school district personnel
said that the ‘‘hot held for service’’
practices in the food service make using
some whole grain-rich products (e.g.,
pasta) difficult. Other commenters noted
that they found the exemption process
too burdensome, and felt that a more
flexible regulatory requirement would
be simpler than extending the existing
process. A number of commenters,
including school district personnel, said
the flexibility will result in lower costs
and reduced food waste.
Comments in Opposition
Many commenters, including
advocacy organizations, healthcare
professionals, and form letters
submitted by individuals, stated that the
whole grain-rich flexibility should not
be allowed because of the public health
benefits associated with the
consumption of whole grains.
Commenters argued that schools should
provide the healthiest foods possible,
including whole grain-rich foods,
because school meals may be the only
wholesome meals available to some
segments of the student population.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Several commenters expressed
opposition to the whole grain-rich
flexibility, reasoning that school meals
help educate children about healthy
eating for life.
Advocacy organizations, professional
associations, healthcare professionals,
and individuals said there is no need for
the whole grain-rich flexibility because
a significant percentage of schools are
complying with the requirement and
have not requested exemptions. Rather
than exemptions, several commenters
recommended that USDA provide
additional training and technical
assistance.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Mixed Response
Some commenters expressed
conditional support or opposition, or
offered suggestions for improving the
interim final rule. A school nutrition
organization, school district personnel,
State agencies, professional
associations, an advocacy organization,
and individual commenters suggested
that instead of extending the existing
whole grain-rich flexibility, USDA
should set a more flexible regulatory
requirement for whole grains.
Recommendations included the
following:
• Requiring that at least half of the
grains offered in the weekly menu be
whole grain-rich;
• Requiring that at least 75 percent of
the grains offered in the weekly menu
be whole grain-rich; and
• Allowing one non-whole grain-rich
menu item in the weekly menu.
In general, these commenters noted
the exemption request process, which
was legislatively required, is
burdensome for school food authorities
and State agencies.
USDA Response
Beginning SY 2019–2020, this final
rule will require that at least half of the
weekly grains offered in the NSLP and
SBP meet the whole grain-rich criteria
specified in FNS guidance, and that the
remaining grain items offered must be
enriched. This decision, recommended
by the School Nutrition Association,
representing 57,000 school nutrition
professionals, is consistent with USDA’s
commitment to alleviate difficult
regulatory requirements, simplify
operational procedures, and provide
school food authorities ample flexibility
to address local preferences. By setting
a more feasible whole grain-rich
requirement in the NSLP and SBP,
school districts nationwide are expected
to incorporate whole grains easily while
still providing menu items that meet
local preferences. This change will
remove the need for whole grain-rich
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
exemption requests based on hardship,
which many commenters, including
State and local Program operators,
described as burdensome.
The requirement to offer exclusively
whole grain-rich products proved
impractical for many school districts
and, due to a long history of
administrative and legislative actions
allowing exemptions, it was never fully
implemented nationwide. Seeking to
assist operators, USDA allowed
enriched pasta exemptions for SYs
2014–2015 and 2015–2016, and
Congress expanded the pasta flexibility
to include other grain products.
Through successive legislative action,
Congress directed the USDA to allow
State agencies to grant individual whole
grain-rich exemptions (Section 751 of
the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
(Pub. L. 113–235); and Section 733 of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2016 (Pub. L. 114–113)). In addition,
Section 747 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115–
31) (2017 Appropriations Act) provided
flexibilities related to whole grains for
SY 2017–2018. Most recently, Section
101(a)(1) of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2018, Division D of
the Continuing Appropriations Act,
2018 and Supplemental Appropriations
for Disaster Relief Requirements Act,
2017, Public Law 115–56, enacted
September 8, 2017, extended the
flexibilities provided by section 747 of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2017 through December 8, 2017. The
2017 Appropriations Act provided
authority for whole grain-rich
exemptions through the end of SY
2017–2018, and the interim final rule
(82 FR 56703) extends the availability of
exemptions through SY 2018–2019.
Despite all of these administrative and
legislative actions, some school food
authorities continue to experience
challenges. Nevertheless, for SY 2017–
2018, a total of 4,297 school food
authorities (about 23 percent of school
food authorities operating the school
meal programs) submitted whole grainrich exemption requests based on
hardship, and nearly all (4,124) received
exemption approval from their State
agency.
USDA recognizes that it is not feasible
to operate these nationwide programs in
an ad hoc fashion, with recurrent
exemptions, without giving operators
and the food industry a workable
regulatory solution that provides the
long-term certainty they need for food
procurement and product reformulation.
At the same time, USDA is mindful of
commenters’ concerns about the health
and dietary habits of children, and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63781
agrees that schools should provide the
healthiest foods possible. The whole
grain-rich requirement in this final rule
is a minimum standard, not a
maximum, and reflects in a practical
and feasible way the Dietary Guidelines’
emphasis on whole grains consumption.
Requiring that at least half of the weekly
grains offered in the NSLP and SBP be
whole grain-rich is a minimum standard
that schools have already accomplished
and is highly achievable, supported by
the School Nutrition Association, and
provides exceptional flexibility for local
operators in planning wholesome and
appealing school meals.
By re-implementing the whole grainrich requirement that was in place from
SY 2012–2013 through SY 2013–2014,
USDA recognizes the nutritional
benefits of whole grains as well as the
need for gradual adjustments in school
menu planning, procurement, and food
service equipment. USDA expects that
many schools will continue to provide
a significant portion of their grain
products each week in the form of
whole grain-rich foods as they are
currently required to do so. As noted
above, at least half of the grains offered
weekly must be whole grain-rich, and
the other grain items offered must be
enriched.
USDA encourages Program operators
to incorporate whole grain-rich products
in the school menu when possible,
especially in popular menu items such
as pizza. USDA will continue to provide
training and technical assistance
resources to assist in these efforts. In
addition, USDA Foods will continue to
make whole grain-rich products easily
available to Program operators. For
example, whole grain or whole grainrich USDA Foods available to schools
for SY 2018–2019 include flour, rolled
oats, pancakes, tortillas, and several
varieties of pasta and rice. Requiring
that half of the weekly grains be whole
grain-rich is intended to set a floor and
not a ceiling. Schools already offering
all grains as whole grain-rich do not
have to change their menus as a result
of this final rule.
As stated earlier, 7 CFR 210.19(e)
allows State agencies discretion to set
additional requirements that are not
inconsistent with the minimum
nutrition standards for school meals.
For example, State agencies could
require school food authorities to offer
whole grain-rich products for four days
in the school week (or approximately 80
percent of the weekly meals), thus
allowing enriched grains one day each
week, as suggested by a commenter. At
the local level, 7 CFR 210.12(a) allows
students, parents and community
members to influence menu planning by
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63782
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
providing ideas on the use of whole
grain-rich products in the weekly menu.
The local school wellness policy (7 CFR
210.31) also provides an important
opportunity to influence the school
nutrition environment at large.
Accordingly, this final rule will
amend the following grains provisions
effective SY 2019–2020:
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B));
and
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Sodium Flexibility
The interim final rule retained
Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP
through SY 2018–2019 (7 CFR
210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f),
respectively), and requested comments
on the long-term availability of this
flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and
the final target as part of the sodium
reduction timeline.
Comments in Support
School personnel and individual
commenters spoke about the work done
by school food service professionals,
manufacturers, and vendors in striving
to meet Sodium Target 1. These
commenters also expressed concern
about the acceptance of meals with
lower sodium content by students, who
are accustomed to eating foods with
higher sodium content outside of
school. Trade associations, a healthcare
professional, and a nutritionist said that
extending Sodium Target 1 through SY
2018–2019 is necessary as there are
challenges in reducing sodium across
the food supply.
Several commenters stated that
schools not equipped for ‘‘scratch’’
cooking rely heavily on processed/
manufactured foods; therefore, these
commenters think it is appropriate to
extend Target 1 until the food industry
is able to develop palatable products
with lower sodium content. Other
commenters and a professional
association argued that there is no
conclusive scientific evidence to
support the benefits of further sodium
reduction in school meals, and there is
uncertainty about the long-term effects
on child or teen development and
overall health.
Trade associations, a healthcare
professional, and a nutritionist said
extending Sodium Target 1 is important
to accommodate the ongoing update of
the current Dietary Reference Intakes
(DRI) for sodium and potassium. The
DRIs, a set of reference values used to
plan and assess the diets of healthy
individuals and groups, are updated
periodically as needed. The commenters
said USDA should wait for the DRI
review currently underway by The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine (NASEM)
before taking further action on sodium
reduction. NASEM DRI review of
sodium and potassium began in fall
2017 and a draft report is expected by
spring 2019. See more information
about the DRIs at https://
www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dietaryreference-intakes.
A State agency and trade associations
supported extending Target 1 through at
least the end of SY 2020–2021. A school
nutrition organization and school
district personnel supported retaining
Target 1 as the final sodium target and
eliminating the other sodium targets.
A professional association and policy
advocacy organization stated that Target
3 (the final target) is fundamentally
unattainable. They expressed concern
that the final sodium target relies on
changes to manufacturing processes that
could use technologies or chemical
substitutes that pose greater health risks
than the sodium they would replace.
Comments in Opposition
Many individual commenters
participating in form letter campaigns, a
State agency, policy advocacy
organizations, and professional
associations expressed concern that the
sodium flexibility will lead to negative
health effects in children, such as
increased risk of high blood pressure,
heart disease, obesity, and stroke. A
policy advocacy organization said
lowering sodium consumption, and
thereby reducing the risk of high blood
pressure, can substantially reduce
public health costs.
Commenters also asserted that there is
no need for sodium flexibility because
Sodium Target 2 is achievable and many
school districts are working toward or
already providing wholesome and
appealing meals with less sodium. A
policy advocacy association said that
several food companies, such as
Aramark, General Mills, Kraft-Heinz,
Mars Food, Nestle, PepsiCo, Tyson
Foods, Subway, Panera, and Unilever,
have been leaders in voluntary sodium
reduction and, therefore, there are more
products with healthier levels of sodium
readily available in the marketplace. A
food manufacturer stated that its
commitment to developing a range of
lower sodium options demonstrates the
industry’s ability to be a productive
partner in addressing crucial public
health problems. Other commenters
expressed concern that extending the
Target I flexibility could lead industry
to halt reformulation and innovation
efforts, and discourage school efforts to
continue sodium reduction.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Some commenters expressed concern
that extending Target 1 moves meal
requirements away from evidencedbased dietary guidance. A policy
advocacy organization stated that the
Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act requires that school meals be
aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, and continuing to delay
implementation of the sodium targets
creates inconsistency with the law. In
addition, policy advocacy associations,
professional associations, and
individuals participating in form letter
campaigns opposed extending Target 1
until SY 2020–2021, stating it would
harm children’s health. Many
commenters stated that, rather than
delaying the sodium targets, USDA
should address remaining challenges by
providing operators targeted training,
technical assistance, and demonstrated
strategies and best practices.
Mixed Response
Some commenters provided mixed
feedback on the flexibility, including
conditional support or opposition, or
suggestions for improvement. A food
bank supported the retention of Target
1 through the end of SY 2018–2019, but
asserted that school districts should be
encouraged to procure and introduce
lower sodium foods in preparation for
the implementation of Target 2. A
school advocacy organization
encouraged USDA to implement Target
2 ‘‘at a future date.’’ Two chapters of a
school nutrition organization that
supported the Target 1 flexibility also
suggested eventual implementation of
Target 2. A professional association and
policy advocacy organization supported
delaying Target 2 and recommended
that Target 2 should be the final target.
The commenters also recommended that
USDA re-evaluate Target 2 in light of
science-based research and the DRI for
sodium.
USDA Response
This final rule will provide schools in
the NSLP and SBP more time for
gradual sodium reduction by retaining
Sodium Target 1 through the end of SY
2023–2024, requiring compliance with
Sodium Target 2 in SY 2024–2025
(which begins July 1, 2024; see charts),
and eliminating the Final Target that
would have gone into effect in SY 2022–
2023.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM— challenging. Setting a more flexible
approach to sodium reduction allows
SODIUM TIMELINE & LIMITS
more time for product reformulation,
school menu adjustments, food service
Age/grade
changes, personnel training, and
group
changes in student preferences. State
agencies that commented on the sodium
K–5 ...........
≤1,230
≤935 timeline generally noted that school
6–8 ............
≤1,360
≤1,035 districts need more time for sodium
9–12 ..........
≤1,420
≤1,080 reduction.
For the sake of clarity, it is important
to note that the sodium limit applies to
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM—
the average meal offered during the
SODIUM TIMELINE & LIMITS
school week; it does not apply per day
or per meal. Menu planners may offer a
Target 1:
Target 2:
relatively high sodium meal or high
Age/grade
July 1, 2014
July 1, 2024
group
SY 2014–2015 SY 2024–2025 sodium food at some point during the
week if meals with lower to moderate
(mg)
(mg)
sodium content are offered the rest of
K–5 ...........
≤540
≤485 the week.
6–8 ............
≤600
≤535
USDA remains committed to strong
9–12 ..........
≤640
≤570 nutrition standards for school meals,
consistent with the statutory
In developing this final rule, USDA
requirement that school meals reflect
was mindful of the review of the DRIs
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
for sodium and potassium intake
Our intention is to ensure that the
currently underway by The National
sodium targets reflect the most current
Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and
and Medicine. Some commenters said
DRIs, are feasible for most schools, and
that USDA should extend Target 1 to
allow them to plan appealing meals that
accommodate the DRI review, which
encourage consumption and intake of
will inform the public on goals for long- key nutrients that are essential for
term sodium reduction. In addition, the children’s growth and development.
new Dietary Guidelines for Americans
USDA also shares commenter concerns
are expected to be released by the end
that near-term implementation of
of calendar year 2020. USDA agrees that further sodium reduction in schools
it is reasonable to extend Target 1, delay could potentially lower the acceptance
Target 2 implementation, and refrain
of meals with lower sodium content by
from setting sodium reduction goals
students, who are currently accustomed
beyond Target 2 until the DRI report and to eating foods with higher sodium
the 2020 Dietary Guidelines are
content outside of school. This could
published and USDA has the
negatively impact program participation
opportunity to assess their impact on
and contribute to food waste.
school meals. In retaining Target 2,
We acknowledge that since 2012
USDA is recognizing the need for
schools have made significant efforts to
further sodium reduction. However,
reduce the sodium content of meals. We
delaying implementation of Target 2
encourage families and communities to
until July 1, 2024, will ensure that
support schools’ efforts by taking
USDA has the time necessary to make
gradual steps to reduce the sodium
any regulatory adjustments based on the content of meals offered to children
most current scientific
outside of schools. Wholesome school
recommendations, including providing
meals are only a part of children’s daily
adequate notice to stakeholders of any
food intake, and children will be more
such adjustments. In the meantime, the
likely to eat them if the foods available
sodium timeline established by this rule to them at home and in the community
will provide schools and the food
are also lower in sodium. Helping
industry the regulatory certainty they
students adjust their taste preferences
need to conduct food procurement and
requires collaboration between schools,
product reformulation activities. We
parents, and communities. As stated
recognize that regulatory certainty is
earlier, student, parent, and community
essential to incentivize the food
involvement in menu planning is
industry’s efforts to support the service
allowed at 7 CFR 210.12(a). The local
of wholesome and appealing school
school wellness policy at 7 CFR 210.31
meals.
also provides an important opportunity
Extending Target 1 is also important
to influence the school nutrition
for practical reasons. As noted by
environment at large.
several commenters, many schools are
State agencies whose school food
not equipped for scratch cooking, which authorities are close to meeting Target 2
makes further sodium reduction
may wish to continue their trajectory
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Target 1:
July 1, 2014
SY 2014–2015
(mg)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Target 2:
July 1, 2024
SY 2024–2025
(mg)
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63783
and implement Target 2 before the
required timeline. As allowed in 7 CFR
210.19(e), State agencies have the ability
to set stricter requirements that are not
inconsistent with the minimum
nutrition standards for school meals.
USDA will continue to provide Program
operators with technical assistance,
training resources, and mentoring to
help them offer the best possible meals.
In addition, USDA Foods will continue
to provide food products with no added
salt and/or low sodium content for
inclusion in school meals.
This final rule provides flexibility to
address sodium challenges and sets a
new timeline to build on the progress
made. It is intended to address
commenters’ concerns regarding student
acceptability and consumption of meals
with lower sodium content, food service
operational issues, food industry’s
reformulation and innovation
challenges, and the important goal to
safeguard the health of millions of
school children. This final rule balances
nutrition science, practical application
of requirements, and the need to ensure
that children receive wholesome and
appealing meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will
amend the following sodium provisions
effective SY 2019–2020:
• NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3)); and
• SBP (7 CFR 220.8(f)).
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This final
rule has been determined to be
significant and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
Economic Summary
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects ($100
million or more in any one year). USDA
does not anticipate that this final rule is
likely to have an economic impact of
$100 million or more in any one year,
and therefore, does not meet the
definition of ‘‘economically significant’’
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63784
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
under Executive Order 12866. The RIA
for an earlier final rule, Nutrition
Standards in the National School Lunch
and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR
4088, January 26, 2012), underscores the
importance of recognizing the linkage
between poor diets and health problems
such as childhood obesity. In addition
to the impacts on the health of children,
the RIA also cites information regarding
the social costs of obesity and the
additional economic costs associated
with direct medical expenses of obesity.
The RIA for the 2012 rule included a
literature review to describe
qualitatively the benefits of a nutritious
diet to combat obesity and did not
estimate individual health benefits or
decreased medical costs that could be
directly attributed to the changes in the
final rule, due to the complex nature of
factors that impact food consumption
and obesity.4 USDA believes the
specific flexibilities in this final rule are
intended to ease Program operator
burden while ensuring the majority of
the changes resulting from the 2012
regulation remain intact.
The Secretary of Agriculture
acknowledged the operational
challenges in meeting the meal
standards related to flavored milk,
whole grain-rich products, and sodium
targets in the May 1, 2017, Proclamation
and committed to working with
stakeholders to ensure that school meal
requirements are practical and result in
wholesome and appealing meals. The
interim final rule Child Nutrition
Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium Requirements (82
FR 56703, November 30, 2017),
established regulations that extend the
school meal flexibilities through SY
2018–2019. For SY 2018–2019, the
regulations provide NSLP and SBP
operators the option to offer flavored
low-fat (1 percent fat) milk with the
meal and as a beverage for sale during
the school day, and apply the flexibility
in the SMP and CACFP for participants
age 6 years and older; extend the State
agencies’ option to allow individual
school food authorities to include grains
that are not whole grain-rich in the
weekly NSLP and SBP menus; and
4 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/
pdf/2012-1010.pdf: ‘‘Because of the complexity of
factors that contribute both to overall food
consumption and to obesity, we are not able to
define a level of disease or cost reduction that is
attributable to the changes in meals expected to
result from implementation of the rule. As the rule
is projected to make substantial improvements in
meals served to more than half of all school-aged
children on an average school day, we judge that
the likelihood is reasonable that the benefits of the
rule exceed the costs, and that the final rule thus
represents a cost-effective means of conforming
NSLP and SBP regulations to the statutory
requirements for school meals.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
retain Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and
SBP.
This final rule makes specific
modifications to the milk, grain, and
sodium requirements beginning in SY
2019–2020. The purpose of this rule is
to ease operational burden and provide
school nutrition professionals the
flexibility needed to successfully
operate the Child Nutrition Programs.
This final rule makes the following
changes beginning in SY 2019–2020:
• Allow NSLP and SBP operators the
option to offer flavored low-fat milk and
require that unflavored milk be offered
at each meal service. For consistency,
the flavored milk flexibility will be
extended to beverages for sale during
the school day, and will also apply in
the SMP and CACFP for participants
ages 6 years and older. This flexibility
will not apply to the Summer Food
Service Program as flavored low-fat milk
is already allowed in that Program.
• Require that at least half of the
weekly grains offered in the NSLP and
SBP be whole grain-rich.
• Retain Sodium Target 1 through the
end of SY 2023–2024 and require
compliance with Sodium Target 2 in SY
2024–2025, which begins July 1, 2024.
USDA expects the health benefits of
the meal standards, which are mainly
left intact, to be similar to the overall
benefits of improving the diets of
children cited in the RIA for the 2012
meal standards rule. While the changes
in this final rule provide flexibilities to
the 2012 regulations, the targeted nature
of the three specific changes addresses
persistent Program operator and
stakeholder challenges with milk, grain,
and sodium requirements. Program
operators may exceed these minimum
requirements and must continue to meet
the same caloric and fat limits specified
in the 2012 rule. The nation’s students
will continue to benefit from the suite
of changes in the 2012 regulations and
the health benefits qualitatively
described in the 2012 RIA still apply.
As explained above, this final rule
eases the operational challenges
associated with these three
requirements while balancing the
nutrition science, as stated in the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and
the Program operator’s ability to comply
with the overall standards and the
importance of ensuring children receive
wholesome and appealing meals. These
challenges were cited during a period of
decreased meal consumption and
Program participation, and some
Program operators reported offering
meals that did not appeal to children.
The USDA Special Nutrition Program
Operations Studies for SYs 2012–2013
and 2013–2014 suggested that, as with
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
any major change, there were some
challenges. During the initial years of
implementation of the 2012 school meal
regulations, nearly one third of SFAs
reported challenges finding products to
meet the updated nutrition standards.
For example, food costs, student
acceptance, and the availability of
products meeting the standards were the
primary challenges anticipated in
implementing the whole grain-rich
requirement in full.5 According to
USDA administrative data, the largest
decrease in NSLP lunch participation
occurred in FY 2013 (-3%) which was
the first fiscal year the standards went
into effect. This decrease was driven by
a substantial decrease in the paid lunch
category. While paid lunch participation
had decreased since 2008, the drop in
2013 was the largest decrease in over 20
years. There were other changes
implemented during this timeframe,
most notably the requirement to
incrementally increase paid lunch
prices; however some of the drop may
have been due to students choosing not
to participate due to the new meal
standards. Paid lunch participation
continues to decline but at a slower rate
in recent years. Total participation has
remained relatively stable for the past 3
years. While there have been many
successes in the implementation of the
2012 standards,6 some Program
operators still face challenges with fully
implementing the suite of changes. The
flexibilities in this rule provide relief to
these Program operators allowing them
to successfully offer wholesome and
appealing meals to students.
USDA is committed to nutrition
science but also understands the
importance of practical requirements for
Program operators to successfully
operate the Child Nutrition Programs.
The changes set forth in this rule still
show progress in school meal nutrition,
and children will continue to be offered
and exposed to wholesome school meals
to facilitate nutritious choices in the
future. Further, we do not anticipate
5 Standing, Kim, Joe Gasper, Jamee Riley, Laurie
May, Frank Bennici, Adam Chu, and Sujata DixitJoshi. Special Nutrition Program Operations Study:
State and School Food Authority Policies and
Practices for School Meals Programs School Year
2012–13. Project Officer: John R. Endahl. Prepared
by Westat for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, October 2016; J.
Murdoch et al. (2016). Special Nutrition Program
Operations Study, SY 2013–14 Report. Prepared by
2M Research Services, LLC. Alexandria, VA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service. Project Officers: Toija Riggins and John
Endahl.
6 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Bridging the
Gap Release on School Meals Perceptions in
Childhood Obesity. September 2013. https://
www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2014/06/bridgingthe-gap-s-work-on-childhood-obesity.html.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
this final rule will deter the significant
progress made to date 7 by State and
local operators, USDA, and industry
manufacturers to achieve healthy,
palatable meals for students. The
certainty this rule provides around the
changes to the standards will provide
industry the ability to commit to
reformulating products and work
towards innovative solutions. These
changes also provide relief to Program
operators who may be meeting the
standards but still facing the sustained
challenges addressed in this final rule.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Cost Impact
Similar to the interim final rule,
USDA anticipates minimal if any costs
associated with the changes to the
nutrition standards for milk, grains, and
sodium. The overall meal components,
macro nutrient, and calorie
requirements for the lunch and breakfast
programs remain unchanged, and it is
the Program operators’ option to use the
milk flexibility or exceed the minimum
whole grain-rich and sodium standards
established in this final rule. These
changes are also promulgated in the
context of significant progress made to
date by State and local operators, USDA,
and food manufacturers to achieve
healthy, appealing meals for students.
Local operators struggling with one or
all of these requirements are expected to
benefit from the more flexible nutrition
standards and be better able to balance
the service of wholesome meals with
availability of current and future
resources for preparing appealing meals.
The added flexibility for the milk and
grain requirements and the additional
time to implement sodium Target 2 are
expected to provide certainty for
Program operators to effectively procure
food to develop wholesome and
appealing menus.
Milk Flexibility
As stated in the interim final rule,
there may be some cases in which
flavored, low-fat milk is slightly more
expensive and for some it might be
slightly less expensive than the varieties
currently permitted in the 2012 meal
standards rule, but any overall
difference in cost is likely to be
minimal. The requirement that
unflavored milk be offered at each
school meal service is not expected to
impact cost. Unflavored milk was a
popular offering prior to the updated
meal standards. In SY 2009–2010, the
7 FNS National Data Bank Administrative Data:
99.8% of lunches served in fiscal year (FY) 2017
received the performance based reimbursement for
compliance with the meal standards. This includes
lunches served in SFAs granted whole grain
exemptions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
most commonly offered milks were
unflavored, low-fat (73 percent of all
daily NSLP menus) and flavored, lowfat (63 percent).Whole milk was offered
in fewer than five percent of all daily
menus.8 Given that unflavored milk was
already a part of the majority of school
meal menus prior to the new standards,
the requirement to offer unflavored
along with flavored milk is not
anticipated to be an additional burden
to Program operators and is likely a
practice Program operators have already
incorporated to satisfy the variety
requirement.
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The changes in this final rule provide
Program operators the flexibility to offer
some non-whole grain-rich products
that are appealing to students without
the administrative burden of the
exemption process. The requirement
that at least half of the weekly grains
offered in NSLP and SBP be whole
grain-rich may provide savings for some
Program operators facing challenges
procuring certain whole grain-rich
products; however, we expect that as
more products become available, any
differential costs associated with whole
grain-rich and non-whole grain-rich
products will normalize in the market.
The availability of whole grain-rich
products through USDA Foods and the
commercial market has increased
significantly since the implementation
of the 2012 meal standards and
continues to progress, providing new
and affordable options for local
operators to integrate into menus.
Finally, due to the wide variation in
local adoption of this flexibility, any
overall savings are likely minimal.
Sodium Flexibility
This final rule extends Sodium Target
1 through school year 2023–2024 and
requires compliance with Sodium
Target 2 in school year 2024–2025. This
decision allows more time to develop
products that meet the rule’s standards
and provides industry with the certainty
needed to continue to develop new
appealing products. This sodium
reduction timeline allows for the
opportunity for any potential impacts to
the school meal programs from the
updated DRI report and the 2020 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans to be
considered. The extension of Target 1
8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis,
School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV, Vol.
I: School Foodservice Operations, School
Environments, and Meals Offered and Served, by
Mary Kay Fox, Elizabeth Condon, Mary Kay
Crepinsek, et al. Project Officer, Fred Lesnett
Alexandria, VA: November 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63785
and the resulting delay of the
implementation of Target 2 to SY 2024–
2025 provide adequate time to
accommodate any potential changes,
including regulatory adjustments to
incorporate updated scientific
recommendations. USDA recognizes the
need for sodium reduction in school
meals and is still retaining Target 2.
USDA anticipates that Program
operators will continue their efforts to
reduce sodium in school meals while
industry will continue to work towards
lower sodium formulations. We do not
anticipate any additional costs
associated with this change as it allows
additional time for Program operators
and industry to reduce sodium levels in
meals.9
Overview of Public Comments and
USDA Response
There were about 20 comment
submissions that provided input on
risks or benefits of the interim final rule.
The American Public Health
Association submitted a form letter
representing 15 individuals who
claimed the USDA underestimated the
reduced health benefits. They expressed
concern that the flexibilities could
lower the estimated health benefits over
time. They indicated that the Economic
Summary does not provide a
sufficiently thorough assessment of lost
benefits and concluded that, in the final
rule, USDA must calculate the reduced
benefit to children for any changes it
makes to the school nutrition standards
related to sodium, whole grains, or
flavored milk.
Similarly, the American Heart
Association said USDA states in the
interim final rule that the benefits
would be similar as the original RIA
conducted on the 2012 rule. They
questioned how the impact could
remain the same when children are
served more sodium, fewer whole grainrich foods, and milk with higher
calories and saturated fat. They stated
9 In the RIA for the final rule, Nutrition Standards
in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs (77 FR 4088), meeting the first sodium
target was not estimated as a separate cost due to
the fact that the first target was meant to be met
using food currently available when the target went
into effect in SY 2014–2015 (or by making minimal
changes to the foods offered). While the regulatory
impact analyses did not estimate a separate cost to
implement Sodium Target 1, it did factor in higher
labor costs for producing meals that meet all the
meal standards at full implementation to factor in
the costs of schools replacing packaged goods to
food prepared from scratch. Over 5 years, the final
rule estimated that total SFAs costs would increase
by $1.6 billion to meet all standards. The cost
estimate extended only through FY 2016, two years
before the final rule’s second sodium target would
have taken effect. The second sodium target was
designed to be met with the help of industry
changing food processing technology.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63786
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
that USDA should recalculate the RIA
and indicate the reduced health benefit
caused by these changes to the school
nutrition standards.
USDA Response
The following sections review the
changes and provide additional
information regarding potential
nutritional impacts.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Milk Flexibility
In this final rule, USDA will allow
NSLP and SBP operators the option to
offer flavored, low-fat milk and require
that unflavored milk be offered at each
meal service. The flavored milk
flexibility will be extended to beverages
for sale during the school day, and will
also apply in the SMP and CACFP for
participants ages 6 years and older.
As noted in the interim final rule, the
regulatory impact analyses for the final
rule, Nutrition Standards in the
National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088), did
not estimate the health benefits
associated with specific changes in meal
components such as the exclusion of
flavored, low-fat milk. USDA’s decision
to allow flavored low-fat milk reflects
the concerns of declining milk
consumption and the importance of the
key nutrients provided by milk.10 Menu
planners must make necessary
adjustments in the weekly menu to
account for the additional calories and
fat content associated with offering
flavored low-fat milk because this final
rule does not change the upper caloric
and fat limits specified in the 2012
regulations. In addition, the requirement
to offer unflavored milk at each meal
service ensures students will have
access to a choice in milk types and also
prevents schools from only offering
different flavored milk types to satisfy
the milk variety requirement. USDA
estimates the nutritional impact of
allowing flavored, low-fat milk to be
minimal with the added calories and fat
to be managed within the upper caloric
and fat limits. Further, student intake of
key nutrients provided through milk
will increase if milk consumption
increases.
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The interim final rule retains through
SY 2018–2019 the State agency’s
discretion to grant whole grain-rich
exemptions to school food authorities
that demonstrate hardship. School food
authorities receiving an exemption must
offer at least half of the weekly grains as
whole grain-rich.
10 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-30/
pdf/2017-25799.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
Starting in SY 2019–2020, this final
rule will require that at least half of the
weekly grains offered in the NSLP and
SBP meet the whole grain-rich criteria
specified in FNS guidance, and the
remaining grain items offered must be
enriched. This decision was made to
reduce Program operator burden while
still providing children access to whole
grain-rich items. The requirement to
offer all whole grain-rich items was
never fully implemented due to the
exemption process, and about 20
percent of school food authorities still
face challenges and apply for
exemptions (over 4,000 school food
authorities for SY 2017–2018).11 The
most commonly requested items for
exemption were pasta, tortillas, biscuits,
and grits. While it is important to
recognize the existing challenges with
some whole grain-rich items, the vast
majority (80 percent) of school food
authorities strived to meet the
requirement and did not request
exemptions in SY 2017–2018. The
impact of reducing the requirement
from all grains offered to half the grains
offered as whole grain-rich recognizes
the importance of including whole
grains in children’s diets without
increasing operational burden.
The exemption process has been in
place since the requirement for all
grains to be whole grain-rich went into
effect in SY 2014–2015. This exemption
process placed a burden on Program
operators and created uncertainty for
stakeholders. As noted above, the
majority of the exemption requests were
for a few items and the process to apply
for an exemption varied by State.
Retaining the requirement that at least
half the grains are whole grain-rich is a
familiar requirement for Program
operators as it was in place for two years
before the requirement shifted to all
grains offered be whole grain-rich.
USDA believes that the requirement for
half the grains to be whole grain-rich is
to be viewed as a minimum amount and
Program operators will likely continue
to serve whole grain-rich items that
have been successfully integrated into
menus while allowing for the few items
that are not as successful to still be
offered.
USDA does not anticipate Program
operators will reduce the amount of
whole grain-rich offerings if they
already exceed the retained standard,
although that is a possibility. Rather,
USDA believes that this change will
allow the time necessary for more
palatable and widely available whole
grain-rich items to continue to be
integrated into menus. USDA does not
11 USDA
PO 00000
informal State reported data.
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
have evidence that setting the whole
grain-rich requirement to a percentage
greater than half and less than all grains
will successfully address Program
operator concerns. Reinstating the
requirement that half of grains must be
whole grain-rich is familiar to Program
operators and provides the flexibility for
some Program operators to integrate
palatable whole grain-rich items into
their menus while still serving items
that are appealing to the students.
USDA recognizes that reimplementing the whole grain-rich
requirement in place from SY 2012–
2013 through SY 2013–2014 will result
in some offered grain items not
transitioning to whole grain-rich, and
that children may not receive some key
nutrients associated with whole grainrich items. However, this rule will
retain the requirement that the grains
that are not whole must be enriched.
As discussed above, the vast majority
of schools are expected to meet the
whole-grain-rich requirements in SY
2017–2018 and did not request
exemptions, demonstrating that the
majority of schools are moving toward
meeting the whole grain-rich standard.
This rule, by continuing to require that
at least half of the offered grains items
be whole grain-rich, will continue to
ensure that children receive whole
grain-rich products as part of their
school meals. The specific flexibilities
in this final rule will ease Program
operator burden while ensuring the
majority of the changes resulting from
the 2012 regulation remain intact. There
are select products that are difficult to
prepare, procure, or do not appeal to
students that make it challenging to
meet the requirement that all weekly
grains offered must be whole grain-rich.
Industry has worked and continues to
work diligently to increase the number
of products reformulated to be whole
grain-rich while still appealing to
students. While this shows significant
progress, the continued use of waivers
and challenges faced by Program
operators to serve all whole grain-rich
items persisted. Moving back to the
requirement that at least half of the
grains offered be whole grain-rich
provides the stability for Program
operators to add slowly and successfully
more whole grain-rich items into menus
without undergoing a burdensome
exemption process. The requirement for
at least half of the grain offered to be
whole grain rich is familiar to Program
operators and USDA does not have any
evidence that setting the standard at a
higher percentage would successfully
alleviate the challenges. Finally, this
requirement is the minimum limit,
providing Program operators the choice
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
to exceed this and offer more whole
grain-rich items as they develop
wholesome and appealing menus.
USDA believes this change will allow
more time for industry to develop
appealing whole grain-rich items as well
as provide more opportunities for
training and technical assistance to
better incorporate whole grain-rich
items. Additionally, USDA Foods,
which makes up about 15 to 20 percent
of the food items offered on an average
school day, continues to develop new
whole grain-rich products each year.
Re-instating the requirement that at
least half of the grains offered be whole
grain-rich will provide Program
operators the local control necessary to
continue to serve items that meet local
preferences while still exposing
students to nutritious whole grain-rich
products.
Sodium Flexibility
The interim final rule retained
Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP
through SY 2018–2019 (7 CFR
210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f),
respectively), and requested comments
on the long-term availability of this
flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and
the final target as part of the sodium
reduction timeline. This final rule will
extend Target 1 through the end of SY
63787
2023–2024, require compliance with
Sodium Target 2 starting in SY 2024–
2025, and eliminate the Final Target
that would have gone into effect in SY
2022–2023. USDA is responding to the
challenges associated with reducing the
sodium level in school meals.
The impact of extending Sodium
Target 1 through SY 2023–2024
increases the average daily sodium level
permitted by about 55–70mg for
breakfast and 300–340mg for lunch
depending on the age/grade group
compared to Sodium Target 2. Sodium
Target 1 is about 90 to 93 percent of the
daily upper intake level for both lunch
and breakfast.
TABLE 1—BASELINE SODIUM AND TARGET LEVELS FOR SBP AND NSLP COMBINED COMPARED TO RECOMMENDED DAILY
INTAKE LEVEL
Age/grade group
Baseline average
sodium level as
offered before
2012 regulations
(mg)
K–5 .......................
6–8 .......................
9–12 .....................
Total school meals (breakfast + lunch sodium target) (mg)
Target 1
1,950
2,149
2,274
Target 2
1,770
1,960
2,060
Final target 1
1,420
1,570
1,650
Recommended daily sodium intake
level (mg)
Child age
1,070
1,180
1,240
4 to 8
9 to 13
14–18
Tolerable upper
level
1,900
2,200
2,300
Percent of Daily Tolerable Upper Level
K–5 .......................
6–8 .......................
9–12 .....................
102.6%
97.7%
98.9%
93.2%
89.1%
89.6%
74.7%
71.4%
71.7%
56.3%
53.6%
53.9%
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
1 The Final Target is presented for analysis purposes only as this rule will remove the Final Target that would have gone into effect in school
year 2022–2023.
The average baseline sodium levels
for school meals prior to the updated
standards made up 98 percent to over
100 percent of the tolerable upper level
of daily sodium intake. This extension
of Target 1 and delay in Target 2
provides time for the DRI report and the
2020 Dietary Guidelines to be
published, and for USDA to consider
the updated information and potential
impact on school meals. This timeline
allows for any adjustments to be made,
including regulatory changes, if needed,
to incorporate any updated scientific
information regarding sodium. USDA is
retaining Target 2 recognizing the need
for further sodium reduction beyond
Target 1. The additional time also
allows for Program operators to slowly
introduce lower sodium foods to
students and for industry to develop
consistent lower sodium products that
are palatable for students.
School children are consuming a
considerable amount of sodium, and
school meals contribute to their daily
total. On average, most students
consume 14 percent of their daily
sodium intake at breakfast, 31 percent at
lunch, 39 percent at dinner, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
remaining 16 percent through snacks.
More than 9 in 10 U.S. school children
eat more sodium than the age-specific
Tolerable Upper Intake Level
established by the Food and Nutrition
Board, NASEM (over 130 to 150 percent
of the daily recommended amount).12
It is important that the sodium level
in school meals is gradually reduced to
assist in introducing children to lower
sodium foods. Delaying the
implementation of Sodium Target 1
provides the certainty for industry
members to continue to develop and test
lower sodium foods for both the school
meal programs and the general public.
Sodium Target 2 makes up about 71
to 75 percent of total upper intake level.
This continued reduction balances the
need for strong nutrition standards with
the operational concerns and student
acceptance of school meals. The
elimination of the Final Target will
allow 55–70mg more sodium for
breakfast and 300–340mg for lunch. The
12 Sodium
Intake among US School-Aged
Children: National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, 2011–2012 Quader, Zerleen S.
et al. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics, Volume 117, Issue 1, 39–47.e5.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Final Target would have made up about
54 to 56 percent of the total upper
intake level.
The extension of Target 1 and delay
in Target 2 provide the additional time
needed for USDA to assess the DRI
report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, which are scheduled for
release at the end for 2020. Extending
the Sodium Target 1 through SY 2023–
2024 allows USDA to incorporate the
latest scientific evidence into the school
meal standards, including time needed
for potential regulatory changes.
As noted earlier, we understand that
there has been significant progress to
date with sodium reduction in school
meals. The additional time this rule
provides will also enable Program
operators to continue to progress, while
allowing industry partners to continue
to develop innovative solutions to lower
sodium foods that can be served in the
school meal programs.
Other Comments
An individual commenter said strict
nutrition standards without
reimbursement from the USDA impose
high costs to feed children healthy
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63788
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
meals in small schools, and some
participating schools are considering
leaving the program due to a low
frequency of low-income children
buying school lunch, resulting in a
significant loss of revenue. The
commenter concluded that this rule will
increase student participation in
purchasing school meals and thus help
schools compensate for loss of revenue
and high cost expenditures.
USDA believes that adding flexibility
to the nutrition standards will allow
Program operators additional time to
work with available products to provide
wholesome and appealing meals to
students within available resources.
This will help increase student
consumption of meals and reduce waste
and revenue loss. While the changes
resulting from the 2012 regulations may
not have resulted in long-term impacts
for participation in some schools,13
USDA understands there is a wide
variation in school food authorities and
challenges encountered by Program
operators. The changes in this final rule
will provide the local level control
necessary to successfully operate the
school meal programs.
Executive Order 13771
This final rule is an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action. It alleviates the
milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium
requirements in the Child Nutrition
Program and provides flexibilities
similar to those currently available as a
result only of appropriations legislation
in effect for SY 2017–2018 and
administrative actions.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612) requires Agencies to
analyze the impact of rulemaking on
small entities and consider alternatives
that would minimize any significant
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. Because this final rule
adds flexibility to current Child
Nutrition Program regulations, the
changes implemented through this final
rule are expected to benefit small
entities operating meal programs under
7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, and 226. The
impacts are not expected to be
significant.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
13 Impact of the 2010 U.S. Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act on School Breakfast and Lunch
Participation Rates Between 2008 and 2015 Nicole
Vaudrin MS, RD, Kristen Lloyd MPH, Michael J.
Yedidia Ph.D., MPH, Michael Todd Ph.D., and
Punam Ohri-Vachaspati Ph.D., RD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 Department generally must prepare
a written statement, including a cost
benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures by State, local or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
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
Department to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the most cost
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule does not contain
Federal mandates (under the 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, the rule is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
The NSLP, SMP, SBP, and the CACFP
are listed in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance under NSLP No.
10.555, SMP No. 10.556, SBP No.
10.553, and CACFP No. 10.558,
respectively, and are subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. Since the Child
Nutrition Programs are Stateadministered, USDA’s FNS Regional
Offices have formal and informal
discussions with State and local
officials, including representatives of
Indian Tribal Organizations, on an
ongoing basis regarding program
requirements and operations. This
provides FNS with the opportunity to
receive regular input from program
administrators and contributes to the
development of feasible program
requirements.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires
Federal agencies to consider the impact
of their regulatory actions on State and
local governments. Where such actions
have federalism implications, agencies
are directed to provide a statement for
inclusion in the preamble to the
regulations describing the agency’s
considerations in terms of the three
categories called for under Section
(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the
impact of this final rule on State and
local governments and has determined
that this rule does not have federalism
implications. Therefore, under section
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism
summary is not required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is intended to
have preemptive effect with respect to
any State or local laws, regulations or
policies which conflict with its
provisions or which would otherwise
impede its full and timely
implementation. This rule is not
intended to have retroactive effect. Prior
to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of the final rule, all
applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this final rule in
accordance with USDA Regulation
4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis,’’
to identify any major civil rights
impacts the rule might have on program
participants on the basis of age, race,
color, national origin, sex, or disability.
After a careful review of the rule’s intent
and provisions, FNS has determined
that this rule is not expected to limit or
reduce the ability of protected classes of
individuals to participate in the NSLP,
SMP, SBP, and CACFP or have a
disproportionate adverse impact on the
protected classes. The Civil Rights
Impact Analysis is available for public
inspection under the Supporting
Documentation tab in docket FNS–
2017–0021.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on policies that
have tribal implications, including
regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FNS has assessed the impact of this
final rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to
the best of its knowledge, have tribal
implications that require tribal
consultation under E.O. 13175. If a
Tribe requests consultation, FNS will
work with the Office of Tribal Relations
to ensure meaningful consultation is
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
provided where changes, additions, and
modifications identified herein are not
expressly mandated by Congress. Tribal
representatives were informed about
this rulemaking on March 14, 2018.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320)
requires the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to approve all collections
of information by a Federal agency
before they can be implemented.
Respondents are not required to respond
to any collection of information unless
it displays a current valid OMB control
number. The provisions of this final rule
do not impose new information
collection requirements subject to
approval by the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to
complying with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the internet and
other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Grant programs-education, Grant
programs—health, Infants and children,
Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, School
breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
7 CFR Part 215
Food assistance programs, Grant
programs—education, Grant program—
health, Infants and children, Milk,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 220
Grant programs—education, Grant
programs—health, Infants and children,
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, School breakfast and
lunch programs.
7 CFR Part 226
Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food
assistance programs, Grant programs,
63789
Grant programs—health, American
Indians, Individuals with disabilities,
Infants and children, Intergovernmental
relations, Loan programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210, 215,
220, and 226 are amended as follows:
PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL
LUNCH PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 210
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751–1760, 1779.
2. In § 210.10:
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text,
revise the table;
■ b. In paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A), second
sentence, remove ‘‘ppendix A’’ and add
in its place ‘‘appendix A’’; and
■ c. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B),
(d)(1)(i), and (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 210.10 Meal requirements for lunches
and requirements for afterschool snacks.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Lunch meal pattern
Grades K–5
Grades 9–12
Amount of Food a per Week
(minimum per day)
Food Components .......................................................................................................................
Fruits (cups) b ...............................................................................................................................
Vegetables (cups) b ......................................................................................................................
Dark green c ..........................................................................................................................
Red/Orange c ........................................................................................................................
Beans and peas (legumes) c ................................................................................................
Starchy c ................................................................................................................................
Other c d .................................................................................................................................
Additional Vegetables to Reach Total e .......................................................................................
Grains (oz eq) f ............................................................................................................................
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ....................................................................................................
Fluid milk (cups) g ........................................................................................................................
Grades 6–8
21⁄2 ( 1⁄2 )
33⁄4 ( 3⁄4 )
1⁄2
3⁄4
1⁄2
1⁄2
1⁄2
1
8–9 (1)
8–10 (1)
5 (1)
21⁄2 ( 1⁄2 )
33⁄4 ( 3⁄4 )
1⁄2
3⁄4
1⁄2
1⁄2
1⁄2
1
8–10 (1)
9–10 (1)
5 (1)
5 (1)1⁄2
5 (1)
1⁄2
11⁄4
1⁄2
1⁄2
3⁄4
11⁄2
10–12 (2)
10–12 (2)
5 (1)
600–700
<10
≤1,035
750–850
<10
≤1,080
Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week
Min-max calories (kcal) h .............................................................................................................
Saturated fat (% of total calories) h .............................................................................................
Sodium Target 2 (mg) h i ..............................................................................................................
Trans fat h j ...................................................................................................................................
550–650
<10
≤935
Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving.
a Food
items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup.
quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or
vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength.
c Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served.
d This category consists of ‘‘Other vegetables’’ as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(E) of this section. For the purposes of the NSLP, the ‘‘Other
vegetables’’ requirement may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
e Any vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement.
f At least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich as specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items offered must
be enriched.
g All fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be unflavored or flavored provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service.
h The average daily calories for a 5-day school week menu must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the maximum
values). Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories,
saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent are not allowed.
i Sodium Target 1 is effective from July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015) through June 30, 2024 (SY 2023–2024). Sodium Target 2 (shown) is effective
July 1, 2024 (SY 2024–2025).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
b One
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63790
j Food
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
products and ingredients must contain zero grams of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Daily and weekly servings. The
grains component is based on minimum
daily servings plus total servings over a
5-day school week. Schools serving
lunch 6 or 7 days per week must
increase the weekly grains quantity by
approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each
additional day. When schools operate
less than 5 days per week, they may
decrease the weekly quantity by
approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each
day less than 5. The servings for
biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/
bread varieties are specified in FNS
guidance. At least half of the grains
offered weekly must meet the whole
grain-rich criteria specified in FNS
guidance, and the remaining grain items
offered must be enriched.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Schools must offer students a
variety (at least two different options) of
fluid milk. All milk must be fat-free
(skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less).
Milk with higher fat content is not
allowed. Low-fat or fat-free lactose-free
and reduced-lactose fluid milk may also
be offered. Milk may be unflavored or
flavored provided that unflavored milk
is offered at each meal service.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) Sodium. School lunches offered to
each age/grade group must meet, on
average over the school week, the levels
of sodium specified in the following
table within the established deadlines:
National
School
Lunch
Program
PART 215—SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM
FOR CHILDREN
4. The authority citation for part 215
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779.
§ 215.7a
5. In § 215.7a, in paragraph (a)(3),
remove the words ‘‘from July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2019 (school year
2018–2019)’’.
■
Sodium timeline & limits
Target 1:
July 1, 2014
(SY 2014–
2015)
(mg)
Age/grade
group
PART 220—SCHOOL BREAKFAST
PROGRAM
Target 2:
July 1, 2024
(SY 2024–
2025)
(mg)
≤1,230
≤1,360
≤1,420
K–5 ...........
6–8 ............
9–12 ..........
[Amended]
6. The authority citation for part 220
continues to read as follows:
■
≤935
≤1,035
≤1,080
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless
otherwise noted.
7. In § 220.8:
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text,
revise the table; and
■ b. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B), (d),
and (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
*
*
§ 210.11
*
*
*
[Amended]
3. In § 210.11, in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii),
(m)(2)(ii), and (m)(3)(ii), remove the
words ‘‘from July 1, 2018 through June
30, 2019, school year 2018–2019’’ before
the semicolon.
■
§ 220.8
*
Meal requirements for breakfasts.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Breakfast meal pattern
Grades K–5
Grades 9–12
Amount of Food a per Week
(minimum per day)
Food Components .......................................................................................................................
Fruits (cups) b c .............................................................................................................................
Vegetables (cups) b c ....................................................................................................................
Dark green ............................................................................................................................
Red/Orange ..........................................................................................................................
Beans and peas (legumes) ..................................................................................................
Starchy ..................................................................................................................................
Other .....................................................................................................................................
Grains (oz eq) d ............................................................................................................................
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) e ..................................................................................................
Fluid milk (cups) f .........................................................................................................................
Grades 6–8
5 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7–10 (1)
0
5 (1)
5 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
8–10 (1)
0
5 (1)
5 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
9–10 (1)
0
5 (1)
400–550
<10
≤535
450–600
<10
≤570
Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week
Min-max calories (kcal) g h ...........................................................................................................
Saturated fat (% of total calories) h .............................................................................................
Sodium Target 2 (mg) h i ..............................................................................................................
Trans fat h j ...................................................................................................................................
350–500
<10
≤485
Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving.
a Food
items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup.
quarter cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or
vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength.
c Schools must offer 1 cup of fruit daily and 5 cups of fruit weekly. Vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of
any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or ‘‘Other vegetables’’ subgroups, as defined in
§ 210.10(c)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
d At least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich as specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items offered must
be enriched. Schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met.
e There is no meat/meat alternate requirement.
f All fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be unflavored or flavored provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service.
g The average daily calories for a 5-day school week menu must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the maximum
values).
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
b One
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
63791
h Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed.
i Sodium Target 1 is effective from July 1, 2014 (SY 2014–2015) through June 30, 2024 (SY 2023–2024). Sodium Target 2 (shown) is effective
July 1, 2024 (SY 2024–2025).
j Food products and ingredients must contain zero grams of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Daily and weekly servings. The
grains component is based on minimum
daily servings plus total servings over a
5-day school week. Schools serving
breakfast 6 or 7 days per week must
increase the weekly grains quantity by
approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each
additional day. When schools operate
less than 5 days per week, they may
decrease the weekly quantity by
approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each
day less than 5. The servings for
biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/
bread varieties are specified in FNS
guidance. At least half of the grains
offered weekly must meet the whole
grain-rich criteria specified in FNS
guidance, and the remaining grain items
offered must be enriched.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Fluid milk requirement. Breakfast
must include a serving of fluid milk as
a beverage or on cereal or used in part
for each purpose. Schools must offer
students a variety (at least two different
options) of fluid milk. All fluid milk
must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1
percent fat or less). Milk with higher fat
content is not allowed. Low-fat or fatfree lactose-free and reduced-lactose
fluid milk may also be offered. Milk
may be unflavored or flavored provided
that unflavored milk is offered at each
meal service. Schools must also comply
with other applicable fluid milk
requirements in § 210.10(d)(1) through
(4) of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) Sodium. School breakfasts offered
to each age/grade group must meet, on
average over the school week, the levels
of sodium specified in the following
table within the established deadlines:
School
breakfast
program
Sodium timeline & limits
Target 1:
July 1, 2014
(SY 2014–
2015)
(mg)
Age/grade
group
Target 2:
July 1, 2024
(SY 2024–
2025)
(mg)
≤540
≤600
≤640
K–5 ...........
6–8 ............
9–12 ..........
*
*
*
*
*
PART 226—CHILD AND ADULT CARE
FOOD PROGRAM
8. The authority citation for part 226
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17,
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a,
1762a, 1765 and 1766).
9. In § 226.20:
a. In paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv),
remove the words ‘‘from July 1, 2018,
through June 30, 2019 (school year
2018–2019)’’; and
■ b. Revise the tables in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 226.20
*
≤485
≤535
≤570
Requirements for meals.
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM—BREAKFAST
Minimum quantities
Food components and food items 1
Ages 1–2
Ages 3–5
Ages 6–12
Ages 13–18 2
(at-risk afterschool
programs and
emergency
shelters)
Adult participants
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Select the Appropriate Components for a Reimbursable Meal
Fluid Milk 3 .........................................
Vegetables, fruits, or portions of
both 4.
Grains (oz eq): 5 6 7
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread product, such as biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, or
fortified cooked breakfast cereal 8, cereal grain, and/or
pasta.
Whole grain-rich, enriched or
fortified ready-to-eat breakfast
cereal (dry, cold) 8 9.
Flakes or rounds .................
Puffed cereal .......................
Granola ...............................
4 fluid ounces ......
⁄ cup .................
12
.............................
⁄ slice ................
12
⁄ serving ............
12
⁄ cup .................
14
14
12
12
14
.............................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
1⁄8 cup .................
6 fluid ounces ......
⁄ cup .................
12
8 fluid ounces ......
⁄ cup .................
12
8 fluid ounces ......
⁄ cup .................
12
.............................
⁄ slice ................
.............................
1 slice ..................
.............................
1 slice ..................
2 slices.
⁄ serving ............
1 serving .............
1 serving .............
2 servings.
⁄ cup .................
12
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
12
.............................
.............................
.............................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
1⁄8 cup .................
1 cup ...................
11⁄4 cup ...............
1⁄4 cup .................
1 cup ...................
11⁄4 cup ...............
1⁄4 cup .................
12
12
34
34
8 fluid ounces.
⁄ cup.
1 cup.
2 cups.
21⁄2 cup.
1⁄2 cup.
Endnotes:
1 Must serve all three components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool participants.
2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63792
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of
8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
4 Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
5 At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards meeting the
grains requirement.
6 Meat and meat alternates may be used to meet the entire grains requirement a maximum of three times a week. One ounce of meat and
meat alternates is equal to one ounce equivalent of grains.
7 Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of creditable grains.
8 Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100
grams of dry cereal).
9 Beginning October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size specified in this section for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals must be served. Until October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size for any type of ready-to-eat breakfast cereal is 1⁄4 cup for children ages 1–2; 1⁄3 cup for children ages 3–5;
3⁄4 cup for children ages 6–12, and 1 1⁄2 cups for adult participants.
(2) * * *
CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM—LUNCH AND SUPPER
Minimum quantities
Food components and food items 1
Ages 1–2
Ages 3–5
Ages 6–12
Ages 13–18 2
(at-risk afterschool
programs and
emergency
shelters)
Adult participants
Select the Appropriate Components for a Reimbursable Meal
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Fluid Milk 3 .........................................
Meat/meat alternates (edible portion
as served):
Lean meat, poultry, or fish .........
Tofu, soy products, or alternate
protein products 5.
Cheese .......................................
Large egg ...................................
Cooked dry beans or peas ........
Peanut butter or soy nut butter
or other nut or seed butters.
Yogurt, plain or flavored unsweetened or sweetened 6.
The following may be used to
meet no more than 50% of
the requirement:
Peanuts, soy nuts, tree
nuts, or seeds, as listed
in program guidance, or
an equivalent quantity of
any combination of the
above meat/meat alternates (1 ounce of nuts/
seeds = 1 ounce of
cooked lean meat, poultry, or fish).
Vegetables 7 ......................................
Fruits 7 8
Grains (oz eq): 9 10
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread product, such as biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, or
fortified cooked breakfast cereal11, cereal grain, and/or
pasta.
4 fluid ounces ......
.............................
6 fluid ounces ......
.............................
8 fluid ounces ......
.............................
8 fluid ounces ......
.............................
8 fluid ounces. 4
1 ounce ...............
1 ounce ...............
11⁄2 ounces ..........
11⁄2 ounces ..........
2 ounces .............
2 ounces .............
2 ounces .............
2 ounces .............
2 ounces.
2 ounces.
1 ounce ...............
1⁄2 ........................
1⁄4 cup .................
2 Tbsp .................
11⁄2 ounces ..........
3⁄4 ........................
3⁄8 cup .................
3 Tbsp .................
2 ounces .............
1 ..........................
1⁄2 cup .................
4 Tbsp .................
2 ounces .............
1 ..........................
1⁄2 cup .................
4 Tbsp .................
2 ounces.
1.
1⁄2 cup.
4 Tbsp.
4 ounces or 1⁄2
cup.
6 ounces or 3⁄4
cup.
8 ounces or 1 cup
8 ounces or 1 cup
8 ounces or 1 cup.
12
⁄ ounce = 50% ..
34
⁄ ounce = 50% ..
1 ounce = 50% ....
1 ounce = 50% ...
1 ounce = 50%.
18
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
.............................
1⁄2 slice ................
14
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
.............................
1⁄2 slice ................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
.............................
1 slice ..................
12
14
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
.............................
1 slice ..................
12
18
14
12
2 slices.
⁄ serving ............
12
⁄ serving ............
1 serving .............
1 serving .............
2 servings.
⁄ cup .................
14
⁄ cup .................
12
12
14
12
14
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
12
⁄ cup.
⁄ cup.
1 cup.
Endnotes:
1 Must serve all five components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool and adult participants.
2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of
8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
4 A serving of fluid milk is optional for suppers served to adult participants.
5 Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to part 226 of this chapter.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
63793
6 Yogurt
must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces.
full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
vegetable may be used to meet the entire fruit requirement. When two vegetables are served at lunch or supper, two different kinds of
vegetables must be served.
9 At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains requirement.
10 Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of the creditable grain.
11 Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100
grams of dry cereal).
7 Pasteurized
8A
(3) * * *
CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM—SNACK
Minimum quantities
Food components and food items 1
Ages
1–2
Ages
3–5
Ages
6–12
Ages 13–18 2
(at-risk afterschool
programs and
emergency
shelters)
Adult participants
Select Two of the Five Components for a Reimbursable Meal
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Fluid Milk 3 .........................................
Meat/meat alternates (edible portion
as served):
Lean meat, poultry, or fish .........
Tofu, soy products, or alternate
protein products 4.
Cheese .......................................
Large egg ...................................
Cooked dry beans or peas ........
Peanut butter or soy nut butter
or other nut or seed butters.
Yogurt, plain or flavored unsweetened or sweetened 5.
Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, or
seeds.
Vegetables 6 ......................................
Fruits 6 ...............................................
Grains (oz eq): 7 8
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched
bread product, such as biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, or
fortified cooked breakfast cereal 9, cereal grain, and/or
pasta.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, or
fortified ready-to-eat breakfast
cereal (dry, cold) 9 10.
Flakes or rounds .................
Puffed cereal .......................
Granola ...............................
4 fluid ounces ......
⁄ ounce .............
⁄ ounce .............
6 fluid ounces ......
8 fluid ounces ......
8 fluid ounces ......
8 fluid ounces.
12
12
12
12
⁄ ounce .............
⁄ ounce .............
1 ounce ...............
1 ounce ...............
1 ounce ...............
1 ounce ...............
1 ounce.
1 ounce.
⁄ ounce .............
⁄ ........................
1⁄8 cup .................
1 Tbsp .................
⁄ ounce .............
⁄ ........................
1⁄8 cup .................
1 Tbsp .................
1 ounce ...............
1⁄2 ........................
1⁄4 cup .................
2 Tbsp .................
1 ounce ...............
1⁄2 ........................
1⁄4 cup .................
2 Tbsp .................
1 ounce.
1⁄2.
1⁄4 cup.
2 Tbsp.
2 ounces or 1⁄4
cup.
1⁄2 ounce .............
2 ounces or 1⁄4
cup.
1⁄2 ounce .............
4 ounces or 1⁄2
cup.
1 ounce ...............
4 ounces or 1⁄2
cup.
1 ounce ...............
4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup.
12
12
12
12
12
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
12
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
34
34
12
12
12
34
34
12
⁄ slice ................
12
⁄ slice ................
1 slice ..................
1 slice ..................
1 slice.
⁄ serving ............
12
⁄ serving ............
1 serving .............
1 serving .............
1 serving.
14
⁄ cup .................
14
⁄ cup .................
12
12
12
12
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
1⁄8 cup .................
12
34
34
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
1⁄8 cup .................
1 cup ...................
11⁄4 cup ...............
1⁄4 cup .................
1 cup ...................
11⁄4 cup ...............
1⁄4 cup .................
1 cup.
11⁄4 cup.
1⁄4 cup.
12
12
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup .................
1 ounce.
⁄ cup .................
⁄ cup.
⁄ cup.
⁄ cup.
ENDNOTES:
1 Select two of the five components for a reimbursable snack. Only one of the two components may be a beverage.
2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of
8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
4 Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to Part 226 of this chapter.
5 Yogurt must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces.
6 Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
7At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains requirement.
8 Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of the creditable grains.
9 Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100
grams of dry cereal).
10 Beginning October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size specified in this section for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals must be served. Until October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size for any type of ready-to-eat breakfast cereal is 1⁄4 cup for children ages 1–2; 1⁄3 cup for children ages 3–5;
and 3⁄4 cup for children ages 6–12, children ages 13–18, and adult participants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
63794
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 6, 2018.
Brandon Lipps,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2018–26762 Filed 12–11–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC–2018–0221]
RIN 3150–AK18
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage
Casks: Holtec International HI–STORM
100 Multipurpose Canister Cask
System, Certificate of Compliance No.
1014, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is amending its
spent fuel storage regulations by
revising the Holtec International HI–
STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask
System (HI–STORM 100 System) listing
within the ‘‘List of approved spent fuel
storage casks’’ to include Amendment
Nos. 11 and 12 to Certificate of
Compliance No. 1014. Amendment Nos.
11 and 12 revise multiple items in the
Technical Specifications for multipurpose canister models listed under
Certificate of Compliance No. 1014;
most of these revisions involve changes
to the authorized contents. In addition,
Amendment No. 11 makes several other
editorial changes.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
February 25, 2019, unless significant
adverse comments are received by
January 11, 2019. If this direct final rule
is withdrawn as a result of such
comments, timely notice of the
withdrawal will be published in the
Federal Register (FR). Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
the NRC is able to ensure consideration
only for comments received on or before
this date. Comments received on this
direct final rule will also be considered
to be comments on a companion
proposed rule published in the
Proposed Rules section of this issue of
the FR.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0221. Address
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Dec 11, 2018
Jkt 247001
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YenJu Chen, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301–
415–1018; email: Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov
or Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards;
telephone: 301–415–8342; email:
Vanessa.Cox@nrc.gov. Both are staff of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments
II. Rulemaking Procedure
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Changes
V. Voluntary Consensus Standards
VI. Agreement State Compatibility
VII. Plain Writing
VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Environmental Impact
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XI. Regulatory Analysis
XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
XIII. Congressional Review Act
XIV. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018–
0221 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0221.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. For the convenience of the
reader, instructions about obtaining
materials referenced in this document
are provided in the ‘‘Availability of
Documents’’ section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2018–
0221 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Rulemaking Procedure
This rule is limited to the changes
contained in Amendment Nos. 11 and
No. 12 to Certificate of Compliance No.
1014 and does not include other aspects
of the Holtec International HI-STORM
100 System design. The NRC is using
the ‘‘direct final rule procedure’’ to
issue this amendment because it
represents a limited and routine change
to an existing Certificate of Compliance
that is expected to be noncontroversial.
Adequate protection of public health
and safety continues to be ensured. The
amendments to the rule will become
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63775-63794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26762]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, and 226
[FNS-2017-0021]
RIN 0584-AE53
Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains,
and Sodium Requirements
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule will codify, with some extensions, three menu
planning flexibilities temporarily established by the interim final
rule of the same title published November 30, 2017. First, it will
broaden the milk options in the National School Lunch Program and
School Breakfast Program by allowing local operators to permanently
offer flavored, low-fat milk. For consistency across nutrition
programs, it will also allow flavored, low-fat milk in the Special Milk
Program for Children and in the Child
[[Page 63776]]
and Adult Care Food Program for participants ages 6 and older. Second,
this final rule will require that half of the weekly grains in the
school lunch and breakfast menu be whole grain-rich, thus ending the
need for the exemption process. Third, it will provide schools in the
lunch and breakfast programs more time for gradual sodium reduction by
retaining Sodium Target 1 through the end of school year (SY) 2023-
2024, continuing to Target 2 in SY 2024-2025, and eliminating the Final
Target that would have gone into effect in SY 2022-2023. By codifying
these changes, USDA acknowledges the persistent menu planning
challenges experienced by some schools, and affirms its commitment to
give schools more control over food service decisions and greater
ability to offer wholesome and appealing meals that reflect local
preferences.
DATES: This rule is effective February 11, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Namian, Chief, School Programs
Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition
Service, telephone: 703-305-2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This final rule will increase flexibility in the Child Nutrition
Program requirements related to milk, grains, and sodium effective SY
2019-2020, which begins July 1, 2019. This rule is the culmination of
the rulemaking process initiated by the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) following the Secretary's May 1, 2017, Proclamation affirming
USDA's commitment to assist schools in overcoming operational
challenges related to the school meals regulations implemented in 2012.
In 2012, USDA updated the National School Lunch (NSLP) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP) meal requirements to reflect the latest Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, as required by the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act in Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4). The
implementing regulations \1\ increased the availability of fruits,
vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat milk in school
meals; required sodium and saturated fat limits, and zero trans-fat in
the weekly school menu; and established calorie ranges intended to meet
part of the age-appropriate calorie needs of children. The updated
requirements were largely based on recommendations issued by the Health
and Medicine Division of The National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (formerly, the Institute of Medicine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final rule Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch
and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088, January 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the milk, grains, and sodium requirements, the
regulations implemented in 2012:
Allowed flavoring only in fat-free milk in the NSLP and
SBP;
Required that half of the grains offered in the NSLP be
whole grain-rich in SY 2012-2013 and one year later in the SBP; and
required that effective SY 2014-2015, all grains offered in both
programs be whole grain-rich (meaning the grain product contains at
least 50 percent whole grains and the remaining grain content of the
product must be enriched); and
Required schools participating in the NSLP and SBP to
gradually reduce the sodium content of meals offered on average over
the school week by meeting progressively lower sodium targets over a
10-year period.
Before and after the regulations were implemented in 2012, USDA
offered guidance, technical assistance resources, and tailored training
programs for Program operators in collaboration with the Institute for
Child Nutrition (formerly, National Food Service Management Institute).
Program advocates, the food industry, and other stakeholders also
collaborated with USDA in different ways to assist operators with
implementation. This enabled many operators to adopt most of the
changes to the NSLP and SBP meal patterns. Child nutrition and public
health advocates who submitted public comments noted that children's
eating habits are improving and student participation in the school
meal programs is increasing in many school districts. USDA acknowledges
the significant efforts and progress these schools have achieved.
However, the changes are only truly successful when all of America's
school children eat and enjoy the school meals.
While some Program operators have had great success in implementing
the updated nutrition standards in a way that encourages healthy eating
and participation, some school meal programs require additional
flexibility and support from USDA to meet this goal. USDA continues to
hear from Program operators about persistent challenges with the milk,
grains, and sodium requirements. The challenges identified by operators
include decreased student participation and/or meal consumption,
difficulties preparing whole grain-rich food items, and limited ability
to offer appealing meals with lower sodium content.
The Secretary of Agriculture acknowledged these challenges in the
May 1, 2017, Proclamation and committed to working with stakeholders to
ensure that the milk, grains, and sodium requirements are practical and
result in wholesome and appealing meals. Subsequently, and consistent
with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), USDA
issued policy guidance (SP 32-2017, May 22, 2017, School Meal
Flexibilities for School Year 2017-2018) providing milk, whole grains,
and sodium flexibilities for SY 2017-2018 while taking steps to
formulate regulatory relief in these areas. USDA's policy guidance was
followed by the interim final rule Child Nutrition Programs:
Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements (82 FR
56703, November 30, 2017), which established regulations that extend
school meal flexibilities through SY 2018-2019 and apply the flavored
milk flexibility to the Special Milk Program for Children (SMP) and the
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for participants age 6 and
older in SY 2018-2019 only. As a result, the regulations applicable in
SY 2018-2019 provide relief in three specific areas while retaining
other essential meal requirements (e.g., fruit and vegetable
quantities, fat restrictions, and calorie ranges) that contribute to
wholesome meals. In brief, for SY 2018-2019, the regulations:
Provide NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer
flavored low-fat (1 percent fat) milk with the meal and as a beverage
for sale during the school day, and apply the flexibility in the SMP
and CACFP for participants age 6 and older;
Extend the State agencies' option to allow individual
school food authorities to include grains that are not whole grain-rich
in the weekly NSLP and SBP menus; and
Retain Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP.
As discussed in the interim final rule preamble (82 FR 56703,
November 30, 2017), there have been numerous administrative and
legislative actions over the last few years to provide flexibility to
schools with regard to the whole grain-rich and sodium requirements.\2\
The interim final rule extended the flexibilities already allowed
through policy guidance (SP 32-2017, May 22, 2017, School Meal
Flexibilities for School Year 2017-2018) and previous appropriations
legislation
[[Page 63777]]
(Pub. L. 112-55, Pub. L. 113-235, Pub. L. 114-113, Pub. L. 115-31, and
Pub. L. 115-56). In addition, the interim final rule allowed milk
flexibility, without the need to demonstrate hardship, in all Child
Nutrition Programs. Furthermore, the rule asked the public to submit
comments on the long-term availability of the three meal flexibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See discussion in the interim final rule Child Nutrition
Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium
Requirements (82 FR 56703, November 30, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a key part of USDA's regulatory reform agenda, this final rule
seeks to ensure that school meals regulations work for all operators,
while reflecting the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, as Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) requires. All
participating children will continue to have access to fruit, an array
of vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat milk, and school
meals will continue to provide appropriate calorie ranges, limited
saturated fat, and no added trans-fat. The targeted modifications in
this final rule, effective July 1, 2019 (SY 2019-2020), apply only to
the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium requirements. This rule
demonstrates USDA's commitment to alleviate regulatory burdens,
provides school nutrition professionals the flexibility and
predictability they repeatedly request to successfully operate the
Child Nutrition Programs, and ensures that Program regulations are
practical for all local providers. This rule will help Program
operators provide wholesome and appealing meals that reflect the
Dietary Guidelines and meet the needs and preferences of their
communities. It is important to note that schools are not required to
change their menus and can choose whether or not to use the
flexibilities this rule provides.
The public comments that helped inform this final rule are
discussed next.
II. Overview of Public Comments and USDA Response
USDA appreciates the significant public interest in the interim
final rule Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium Requirements (82 FR 56703, November 30, 2017).
During the 60-day comment period (November 30, 2017--January 29, 2018),
USDA received a total of 86,247 comments, including 53 non-germane
comments and 3 duplicates. All comments, except the non-germane and
duplicate comments, are posted online at www.regulations.gov. See
docket FNS-2017-0021, Child Nutrition: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium Requirements.
USDA worked in collaboration with a data analysis company to code
and analyze the public comments using a commercial web-based software
product and obtained data showing support for or opposition to each
meal flexibility. The Summary of Public Comments report is available
under the Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2017-0021.
The vast majority of the total public submissions were form
letters. There were 16 form letter campaigns, which comprised 84,453
form letter copies. These comments were submitted by individuals
participating in letter campaigns organized primarily by MomsRising,
the American Heart Association Sodium Reduction Initiative, Salud
America!, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These form letters
were mostly from parents and other individuals urging USDA to retain
strong nutrition requirements for school meals.
In addition to the form letter copies, there were 1,738 unique
submissions that provided substantive comments on issues specific to
the three menu planning flexibilities and were therefore very useful in
informing the development of this final rule. These unique comments,
which included the master letter for each of the form letter campaigns,
reflected a wide range of opinions--support, opposition, and mixed
comments on each of the flexibilities. These comments were submitted by
individuals, school district personnel, students, healthcare
professionals, parents/guardians, dietitians/nutritionists, policy
advocacy organizations, professional associations, State agency
directors, trade/industry associations, nutrition/anti-hunger
advocates, school nutrition advocacy organizations, academics/
researchers, and the food industry. For example, stakeholders that
submitted unique comments include: the School Nutrition Association,
State agencies, School Superintendents Association, Council of Great
City Schools, American Public Health Association, American Heart
Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, MomsRising,
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Food Research &
Action Center, American Commodity Distribution Association, Grocery
Manufacturers Association, General Mills, and Mars, Incorporated.
The following tables show tallies of the total and unique comments
received for each of the meal flexibilities addressed in the interim
final rule:
Milk Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all Percent of unique
Commenter position Count of milk comments received Count of unique milk comments
comments received (86,247) milk comments (181)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support.......................... 36 Less than 1......... 36 19.9
Oppose........................... 5,441 6................... 84 46.4
Mixed............................ 69 Less than 1......... 61 33.7
------------------- -------------------------------------
Milk Submissions............. 5,546 6................... 181 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all Percent of unique
Commenter position Count of grains comments received Count of unique grain comments
comments received (86,247) grains comments (217)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support.......................... 43 Less than 1......... 43 19.8
Oppose........................... 83,767 97.................. 122 56.2
Mixed............................ 523 Less than 1......... 52 24.0
------------------- -------------------------------------
Grains Submissions........... 84,333 98.................. 217 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63778]]
Sodium Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all Percent of unique
Commenter position Count of sodium comments received Count of unique sodium comments
comments received (86,247) sodium comments (229)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support.......................... 550 Less than 1......... 79 34.5
Oppose........................... 83,152 96.................. 132 57.6
Mixed............................ 18 Less than 1......... 18 7.9
------------------- -------------------------------------
Sodium Submissions........... 83,720 97.................. 229 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, commenters in favor of the flexibilities argued that
these provide more menu planning options for schools and thus enhance
their ability to offer wholesome and appealing meals. They stated that
the flexibilities will lead to increased meal consumption and better
health outcomes for students. The School Nutrition Association,
representing 57,000 members, urged USDA to adopt a permanent solution
to operational challenges rather than temporary rules and annual
waivers.
Commenters opposed to the flexibilities argued that these are not
needed because most schools report being in compliance with the meal
patterns, and the flexibilities could restrain schools' progress in
increasing whole grains and reducing sodium intake. Many expressed
interest in retaining the meal patterns as implemented in 2012, and
stated their concern about children's continued access to wholesome
school meals and the need to help children develop positive dietary
habits for life.
In addition to specific comments about the milk, whole grain-rich,
and sodium flexibilities, commenters provided general feedback on the
interim final rule. The following table shows tallies of the general
comments received in support of and against the meal flexibilities
addressed in the interim final rule. Many of the opposing comments were
submitted as part of the form letter campaigns described above:
General Feedback on Milk, Whole Grain-Rich, and Sodium Flexibilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all
Themes Count of comments comments received
received (86,247)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive health impacts for 20 Less than 1.
children.
Increase meal consumption and 90 Less than 1.
decrease food waste.
Relieve industry of meal 4 Less than 1.
pattern compliance challenges
(e.g. product development).
Reduce compliance burden for 20 Less than 1.
Program operators.
Other general support......... 60 Less than 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Opposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negative health impacts for 6,830 8.
children.
Negative impacts on children's 1,190 1.4.
ability to access healthy
meals.
Flexibilities are not needed 83,080 96.
(e.g. widespread compliance
with existing standards).
Inconsistent with Dietary 260 Less than 1.
Guidelines for Americans.
Other general opposition...... 290 Less than 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful consideration of all stakeholders' comments, USDA
believes that school nutrition operators have made the case that this
final rule's targeted regulatory flexibility is practical and necessary
for efficient Program operation. The targeted regulatory flexibility
will improve student participation without a detrimental effect on the
overall quality of the meals offered to children. Some commenters
opposed to the flexibilities voiced concerns about the potential impact
of the flexibilities on various segments of the student population.
USDA is addressing these concerns separately in the Civil Rights Impact
Analysis, which is available under the Supporting Documentation tab in
docket FNS-2017-0021.
The following is a high-level summary of the flexibilities as
stated in the interim final rule (82 FR 56703, November 30, 2017), the
key concerns and arguments expressed by commenters, and USDA's
response. Miscellaneous comments regarding food quantities, meal costs,
calorie limits, and other topics unrelated to the flexibilities in the
interim final rule are not discussed in this preamble, but are included
in the Summary of Public Comments report.
Prior to publication of the interim final rule, USDA received 580
postcards expressing opposition to the flexibilities as stated in the
Secretary's May 1, 2017, Proclamation. These postcards were not
submitted in response to the interim final rule and, therefore, were
not included in the comment analysis or as part of the public record
for this rulemaking. They would not, in any event, alter the agency's
final conclusions herein.
Milk Flexibility
In SY 2018-2019, the interim final rule:
Allows schools to offer flavored, low-fat milk in the NSLP
(including as a beverage for sale during the school day) and the SBP (7
CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 7 CFR 210.11(m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii);
and 7 CFR 220.8(d));
Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the Special Milk Program
for Children
[[Page 63779]]
(SMP) for children ages 6 and older (7 CFR 215.7a(a)(3)); and
Allows flavored, low-fat milk in the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) for children ages 6 and older and adults (7 CFR
226.20(a)(1)(iii) and (iv); and 7 CFR 226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
Comments in Support
Commenters in support of the milk flexibility included individuals,
a school nutrition organization, State agencies, food manufacturers,
and trade associations. Supporters generally expressed concern related
to the decline in children's milk consumption. They argued that
allowing flavored, low-fat milk will provide schools more menu planning
options, promote students' milk consumption, and lead to better health
outcomes.
A nutritionist, healthcare professional, and food manufacturer
stated that allowing flavored, low-fat milk will increase milk
consumption and result in greater intake of essential nutrients such as
vitamin D, magnesium, and calcium. A healthcare professional and
members of academia stated that the minor increase in calories from
flavored, low-fat milk could be offset with appropriate menu planning.
A dairy trade association asserted that the net increase in calories
between fat-free and low-fat, flavored milk is small due to progress
made by dairy processors in reducing the calories in flavored milk.
According to the commenter, milk processors have reduced the calorie
and added sugar content of flavored milk between SY 2006-2007 and SY
2015-2016 by more than 9 grams per serving (or 55 percent) in chocolate
milk produced for the school market.
A State agency suggested that the flexibility should be offered
across all Federal Child Nutrition Programs for consistency. A few
commenters offered suggestions unrelated to the milk flexibility, such
as allowing schools to offer non-dairy milk options, and eliminating
all fat limits on fluid milk offered in schools.
Comments in Opposition
Commenters opposed to the milk flexibility included parents and
individuals, public health practitioners, and nutrition advocates.
These commenters generally expressed health concerns related to added
sugar in flavored milk. They argued that offering flavored, low-fat
milk contradicts expert nutrition recommendations and could lead to
increased sugar, fat, and calorie intake by children in the near and
long term. They argued that schools offering flavored, low-fat milk may
have to offer less food to offset the extra calories associated with
this option, and said that school meals with flavored low-fat milk
could exceed the weekly calorie ranges while offering no additional
nutritional benefit. Others stated that the milk flexibility is
unnecessary because students seem to accept unflavored, low-fat milk
and unflavored/flavored, fat-free milk.
Several commenters argued that the milk flexibility as stated in
the interim final rule is inconsistent with congressional intent
because it does not require school districts to demonstrate a reduction
in student milk consumption or an increase in school milk waste, which
is specified in Section 747(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2017.
A policy advocacy organization argued that, because milk is
consumed so frequently by children, restricting flavor to fat-free milk
helps decrease the amount of saturated fat in children's diets. The
commenter also commended USDA for continuing to prohibit flavored milk
for children under six years old.
A few individuals and public advocacy organizations also opposed
allowing flavored, low-fat milk as a competitive beverage for sale in
schools. They stated that, because schools are largely prohibited from
selling most sugar-sweetened beverages on campus during the school day,
there is no longer a need to offer flavored milk as an appealing option
relative to other beverages with higher sugar content.
Mixed Response
A few commenters expressed conditional support or opposition, or
offered suggestions for improving the interim final rule. For example,
a State agency in favor of the milk flexibility recommended that USDA
include a requirement that at least one type of unflavored milk be
available at the meal service.
Several commenters opposed to the milk flexibility recommended that
if USDA allows flavored, low-fat milk, a calorie limit of no more than
130 calories per 8 ounce serving should be established, consistent with
the Robert Wood Johnson's Healthy Eating Research Healthier Beverage
Guidelines. A few individuals and school district personnel suggested
that USDA allow reduced fat (2%) milk or whole milk for health reasons
rather than provide flexibility to offer flavored, low-fat or non-fat
milk.
USDA Response
Beginning SY 2019-2020, this final rule will provide NSLP and SBP
operators with the option to offer flavored, low-fat milk and require
that unflavored milk be offered at each meal service. For consistency,
the flavored, low-fat milk option will be extended to beverages for
sale during the school day, and will also apply in the SMP and CACFP
for participants ages 6 and older. We recognize that regulatory
consistency across programs, a long-time practice at USDA, facilitates
program administration and operation at the State and local levels,
fosters customer support, and meets customers' expectations. The Summer
Food Service Program (SFSP) currently allows flavored, low-fat milk
with summer meals so this rule makes no change to milk service in the
SFSP.
By broadening the flavored milk choices in the Child Nutrition
Programs, USDA seeks to remove regulatory restrictions that may hinder
milk consumption. USDA's decision to expand the milk choices is based
on stakeholders' concerns over decreasing milk consumption in the U.S.
population. Data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows a decrease
in fluid milk consumption from 197 pounds per person in 2000 to 154
pounds per person in 2016.\3\ Chobani, General Mills, and the Grocery
Manufacturers Association cited this data in their comments. Commenters
suggested that allowing flavored low-fat milk, a popular item among
children, could help improve children's consumption of milk, an
important source of calcium, vitamin D (for products fortified with
vitamin D), and potassium. Further, commenters such as the National
Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy Foods Association
noted that milk processors have significantly reduced the calorie and
sugar content of flavored milk in recent years. Commenters noted that
flavoring and a moderate amount of sweetener increases palatability,
without compromising the positive nutritional impacts of milk
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Dairy products: Per capita consumption, United States (Annual).
September 2017. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For operational efficiency, operators will be allowed to serve
flavored low-fat milk without the need to demonstrate hardship. This
will relieve schools from submitting written justification and evidence
(e.g., meal count records, photos, etc.) to the State agency to
demonstrate financial hardship, such as a drop in meal counts or an
increase in food waste. USDA is removing this operational burden for
State and local
[[Page 63780]]
operators to streamline procedures given the interest in this milk
option. For SY 2017-2018, a total of 578 school food authorities (about
3 percent of all school food authorities operating the school meal
programs) submitted flavored, low-fat milk exemption requests based on
hardship, and State agencies approved 562 of those requests.
Eliminating the need to demonstrate hardship is consistent with the
underlying statutory authority. The provision cited by commenters,
Section 747(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, expires
with the 2017-2018 school year, whereas this rule is effective with the
2019-2020 school year. Further, under section 9(a)(2) of the National
School Lunch Act, students must be provided with a variety of fluid
milk and milk may be flavored or unflavored; there is no statutory
requirement to demonstrate hardship in order to serve low-fat, flavored
milk.
A comment from a State agency recommended that the milk flexibility
include the requirement that operators offer unflavored milk at each
meal service, in addition to any flavored milk offered. USDA agrees
with this recommendation. Therefore, upon implementation of this rule,
NSLP and SBP operators that choose to offer flavored milk must also
offer unflavored milk (fat-free or low-fat) at the same meal service.
This requirement will ensure that milk variety in the NSLP and SBP is
not limited to flavored milk choices. It is expected to help schools
that choose to offer flavored milk in their menus stay within the
weekly dietary specifications. USDA believes that most schools would
continue to offer unflavored milk at each meal service to meet parents'
expectations, even if offering unflavored milk was not a requirement.
USDA recognizes the importance of having unflavored milk as a
choice for students at each lunch and breakfast service. Many comments
from parents, public health practitioners, and nutrition advocates
voiced concerns over added sugars in the school meals and expressed a
strong interest in retaining children's access to unflavored milk. We
are aware that parents may want their children to drink unflavored milk
at lunch and breakfast (e.g., with breakfast cereal). In addition, many
State agencies have promoted unflavored milk in the NSLP and SBP as
every edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans since 1980 has
recommended reducing sugar intake. We note that the requirement to
ensure that unflavored milk is available on the school menu will not
apply in the NSLP afterschool snack service, the SMP, or the CACFP
consistent with existing Program requirements. These meal services do
not have a requirement to offer a variety of fluid milk as they are
smaller in size and resources than the lunch and breakfast services.
Some commenters recommended calorie limits for individual servings
of flavored, low-fat milk (no more than 130 calories per 8 ounce
serving). Since the NSLP and SBP calorie limits apply to the meals
offered on average over the school week, this final rule will not set
calorie limits for individual servings of flavored, low-fat milk.
However, school food authorities that choose to offer flavored, low-fat
milk are encouraged to obtain relevant information, such as the Robert
Wood Johnson's Healthy Eating Research Healthier Beverage Guidelines,
to inform procurement decisions. In addition, school food authorities
that choose to offer flavored, low-fat milk should plan menus carefully
to ensure that the weekly meals stay within the required calorie and
saturated fat limits, and consult with their State agency as necessary
to make proper menu adjustments.
Some commenters stated that the milk flexibility is unnecessary
because most students seem to have accepted the 2012 provision that
limits flavor to fat-free milk. While USDA acknowledges that many
school food authorities have incorporated the 2012 meal patterns, USDA
agrees with the Program operators who commented that expanding milk
choices will likely improve student participation in the school meals
programs and increase milk consumption. Offering flavored, low-fat milk
expands the options available to schools to meet the milk requirement.
Schools can choose to pursue this flavored milk option, or not, based
on local preference. USDA encourages parents and students to provide
feedback to their school food service operators regarding the menus and
food products offered to students at lunch and breakfast (see existing
provision at 7 CFR 210.12(a)).
The local school wellness policy, 7 CFR 210.31, also provides
students, parents and interested community members an important
opportunity to influence the school nutrition environment at large. In
addition, as allowed in 7 CFR 210.19(e), State agencies have discretion
to set stricter requirements that are not inconsistent with the minimum
nutrition standards for school meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following milk
provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 7 CFR 210.11(m)(1)(ii),
(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii));
SBP (7 CFR 220.8(d));
SMP (7 CFR 215.7(a)(3)); and
CACFP (7 CFR 226.20(a)(1)(iii) and (iv) and 7 CFR
226.20(c)(1), (2) and (3)).
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The interim final rule provides State agencies through SY 2018-2019
discretion to grant exemptions to the whole grain-rich requirement to
school food authorities that demonstrate hardship. School food
authorities receiving an exemption must offer at least half of the
weekly grains as whole grain-rich. (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B) and 7 CFR
220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
Comments in Support
Several commenters, including a food industry association, school
district personnel, and individual commenters, reasoned that whole
grain-rich exemptions should be allowed because some products (e.g.,
pasta, bread, sushi rice, tortillas, and biscuits) and regional
products (e.g., grits in the South), are not acceptable to students in
a whole grain-rich form. Other commenters, including food industry
commenters, a healthcare professional, and an individual from academia,
stated that it is necessary to allow the food industry sufficient time
to develop solutions to the whole grain-rich challenges and provide
operators more time to address preparation issues and develop menus and
recipes that are acceptable to students. Some school district personnel
said that the ``hot held for service'' practices in the food service
make using some whole grain-rich products (e.g., pasta) difficult.
Other commenters noted that they found the exemption process too
burdensome, and felt that a more flexible regulatory requirement would
be simpler than extending the existing process. A number of commenters,
including school district personnel, said the flexibility will result
in lower costs and reduced food waste.
Comments in Opposition
Many commenters, including advocacy organizations, healthcare
professionals, and form letters submitted by individuals, stated that
the whole grain-rich flexibility should not be allowed because of the
public health benefits associated with the consumption of whole grains.
Commenters argued that schools should provide the healthiest foods
possible, including whole grain-rich foods, because school meals may be
the only wholesome meals available to some segments of the student
population.
[[Page 63781]]
Several commenters expressed opposition to the whole grain-rich
flexibility, reasoning that school meals help educate children about
healthy eating for life.
Advocacy organizations, professional associations, healthcare
professionals, and individuals said there is no need for the whole
grain-rich flexibility because a significant percentage of schools are
complying with the requirement and have not requested exemptions.
Rather than exemptions, several commenters recommended that USDA
provide additional training and technical assistance.
Mixed Response
Some commenters expressed conditional support or opposition, or
offered suggestions for improving the interim final rule. A school
nutrition organization, school district personnel, State agencies,
professional associations, an advocacy organization, and individual
commenters suggested that instead of extending the existing whole
grain-rich flexibility, USDA should set a more flexible regulatory
requirement for whole grains. Recommendations included the following:
Requiring that at least half of the grains offered in the
weekly menu be whole grain-rich;
Requiring that at least 75 percent of the grains offered
in the weekly menu be whole grain-rich; and
Allowing one non-whole grain-rich menu item in the weekly
menu.
In general, these commenters noted the exemption request process,
which was legislatively required, is burdensome for school food
authorities and State agencies.
USDA Response
Beginning SY 2019-2020, this final rule will require that at least
half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP meet the whole
grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and that the remaining
grain items offered must be enriched. This decision, recommended by the
School Nutrition Association, representing 57,000 school nutrition
professionals, is consistent with USDA's commitment to alleviate
difficult regulatory requirements, simplify operational procedures, and
provide school food authorities ample flexibility to address local
preferences. By setting a more feasible whole grain-rich requirement in
the NSLP and SBP, school districts nationwide are expected to
incorporate whole grains easily while still providing menu items that
meet local preferences. This change will remove the need for whole
grain-rich exemption requests based on hardship, which many commenters,
including State and local Program operators, described as burdensome.
The requirement to offer exclusively whole grain-rich products
proved impractical for many school districts and, due to a long history
of administrative and legislative actions allowing exemptions, it was
never fully implemented nationwide. Seeking to assist operators, USDA
allowed enriched pasta exemptions for SYs 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, and
Congress expanded the pasta flexibility to include other grain
products. Through successive legislative action, Congress directed the
USDA to allow State agencies to grant individual whole grain-rich
exemptions (Section 751 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235); and Section 733 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113)). In addition,
Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-
31) (2017 Appropriations Act) provided flexibilities related to whole
grains for SY 2017-2018. Most recently, Section 101(a)(1) of the
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, Division D of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster
Relief Requirements Act, 2017, Public Law 115-56, enacted September 8,
2017, extended the flexibilities provided by section 747 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 through December 8, 2017. The
2017 Appropriations Act provided authority for whole grain-rich
exemptions through the end of SY 2017-2018, and the interim final rule
(82 FR 56703) extends the availability of exemptions through SY 2018-
2019. Despite all of these administrative and legislative actions, some
school food authorities continue to experience challenges.
Nevertheless, for SY 2017-2018, a total of 4,297 school food
authorities (about 23 percent of school food authorities operating the
school meal programs) submitted whole grain-rich exemption requests
based on hardship, and nearly all (4,124) received exemption approval
from their State agency.
USDA recognizes that it is not feasible to operate these nationwide
programs in an ad hoc fashion, with recurrent exemptions, without
giving operators and the food industry a workable regulatory solution
that provides the long-term certainty they need for food procurement
and product reformulation. At the same time, USDA is mindful of
commenters' concerns about the health and dietary habits of children,
and agrees that schools should provide the healthiest foods possible.
The whole grain-rich requirement in this final rule is a minimum
standard, not a maximum, and reflects in a practical and feasible way
the Dietary Guidelines' emphasis on whole grains consumption. Requiring
that at least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP be
whole grain-rich is a minimum standard that schools have already
accomplished and is highly achievable, supported by the School
Nutrition Association, and provides exceptional flexibility for local
operators in planning wholesome and appealing school meals.
By re-implementing the whole grain-rich requirement that was in
place from SY 2012-2013 through SY 2013-2014, USDA recognizes the
nutritional benefits of whole grains as well as the need for gradual
adjustments in school menu planning, procurement, and food service
equipment. USDA expects that many schools will continue to provide a
significant portion of their grain products each week in the form of
whole grain-rich foods as they are currently required to do so. As
noted above, at least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole
grain-rich, and the other grain items offered must be enriched.
USDA encourages Program operators to incorporate whole grain-rich
products in the school menu when possible, especially in popular menu
items such as pizza. USDA will continue to provide training and
technical assistance resources to assist in these efforts. In addition,
USDA Foods will continue to make whole grain-rich products easily
available to Program operators. For example, whole grain or whole
grain-rich USDA Foods available to schools for SY 2018-2019 include
flour, rolled oats, pancakes, tortillas, and several varieties of pasta
and rice. Requiring that half of the weekly grains be whole grain-rich
is intended to set a floor and not a ceiling. Schools already offering
all grains as whole grain-rich do not have to change their menus as a
result of this final rule.
As stated earlier, 7 CFR 210.19(e) allows State agencies discretion
to set additional requirements that are not inconsistent with the
minimum nutrition standards for school meals. For example, State
agencies could require school food authorities to offer whole grain-
rich products for four days in the school week (or approximately 80
percent of the weekly meals), thus allowing enriched grains one day
each week, as suggested by a commenter. At the local level, 7 CFR
210.12(a) allows students, parents and community members to influence
menu planning by
[[Page 63782]]
providing ideas on the use of whole grain-rich products in the weekly
menu. The local school wellness policy (7 CFR 210.31) also provides an
important opportunity to influence the school nutrition environment at
large.
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following grains
provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B)); and
SBP (7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B)).
Sodium Flexibility
The interim final rule retained Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP
through SY 2018-2019 (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f),
respectively), and requested comments on the long-term availability of
this flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and the final target as
part of the sodium reduction timeline.
Comments in Support
School personnel and individual commenters spoke about the work
done by school food service professionals, manufacturers, and vendors
in striving to meet Sodium Target 1. These commenters also expressed
concern about the acceptance of meals with lower sodium content by
students, who are accustomed to eating foods with higher sodium content
outside of school. Trade associations, a healthcare professional, and a
nutritionist said that extending Sodium Target 1 through SY 2018-2019
is necessary as there are challenges in reducing sodium across the food
supply.
Several commenters stated that schools not equipped for ``scratch''
cooking rely heavily on processed/manufactured foods; therefore, these
commenters think it is appropriate to extend Target 1 until the food
industry is able to develop palatable products with lower sodium
content. Other commenters and a professional association argued that
there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the benefits of
further sodium reduction in school meals, and there is uncertainty
about the long-term effects on child or teen development and overall
health.
Trade associations, a healthcare professional, and a nutritionist
said extending Sodium Target 1 is important to accommodate the ongoing
update of the current Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for sodium and
potassium. The DRIs, a set of reference values used to plan and assess
the diets of healthy individuals and groups, are updated periodically
as needed. The commenters said USDA should wait for the DRI review
currently underway by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine (NASEM) before taking further action on sodium reduction.
NASEM DRI review of sodium and potassium began in fall 2017 and a draft
report is expected by spring 2019. See more information about the DRIs
at https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dietary-reference-intakes.
A State agency and trade associations supported extending Target 1
through at least the end of SY 2020-2021. A school nutrition
organization and school district personnel supported retaining Target 1
as the final sodium target and eliminating the other sodium targets.
A professional association and policy advocacy organization stated
that Target 3 (the final target) is fundamentally unattainable. They
expressed concern that the final sodium target relies on changes to
manufacturing processes that could use technologies or chemical
substitutes that pose greater health risks than the sodium they would
replace.
Comments in Opposition
Many individual commenters participating in form letter campaigns,
a State agency, policy advocacy organizations, and professional
associations expressed concern that the sodium flexibility will lead to
negative health effects in children, such as increased risk of high
blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, and stroke. A policy advocacy
organization said lowering sodium consumption, and thereby reducing the
risk of high blood pressure, can substantially reduce public health
costs.
Commenters also asserted that there is no need for sodium
flexibility because Sodium Target 2 is achievable and many school
districts are working toward or already providing wholesome and
appealing meals with less sodium. A policy advocacy association said
that several food companies, such as Aramark, General Mills, Kraft-
Heinz, Mars Food, Nestle, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods, Subway, Panera, and
Unilever, have been leaders in voluntary sodium reduction and,
therefore, there are more products with healthier levels of sodium
readily available in the marketplace. A food manufacturer stated that
its commitment to developing a range of lower sodium options
demonstrates the industry's ability to be a productive partner in
addressing crucial public health problems. Other commenters expressed
concern that extending the Target I flexibility could lead industry to
halt reformulation and innovation efforts, and discourage school
efforts to continue sodium reduction.
Some commenters expressed concern that extending Target 1 moves
meal requirements away from evidenced-based dietary guidance. A policy
advocacy organization stated that the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act requires that school meals be aligned with the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, and continuing to delay implementation of the
sodium targets creates inconsistency with the law. In addition, policy
advocacy associations, professional associations, and individuals
participating in form letter campaigns opposed extending Target 1 until
SY 2020-2021, stating it would harm children's health. Many commenters
stated that, rather than delaying the sodium targets, USDA should
address remaining challenges by providing operators targeted training,
technical assistance, and demonstrated strategies and best practices.
Mixed Response
Some commenters provided mixed feedback on the flexibility,
including conditional support or opposition, or suggestions for
improvement. A food bank supported the retention of Target 1 through
the end of SY 2018-2019, but asserted that school districts should be
encouraged to procure and introduce lower sodium foods in preparation
for the implementation of Target 2. A school advocacy organization
encouraged USDA to implement Target 2 ``at a future date.'' Two
chapters of a school nutrition organization that supported the Target 1
flexibility also suggested eventual implementation of Target 2. A
professional association and policy advocacy organization supported
delaying Target 2 and recommended that Target 2 should be the final
target. The commenters also recommended that USDA re-evaluate Target 2
in light of science-based research and the DRI for sodium.
USDA Response
This final rule will provide schools in the NSLP and SBP more time
for gradual sodium reduction by retaining Sodium Target 1 through the
end of SY 2023-2024, requiring compliance with Sodium Target 2 in SY
2024-2025 (which begins July 1, 2024; see charts), and eliminating the
Final Target that would have gone into effect in SY 2022-2023.
[[Page 63783]]
National School Lunch Program--Sodium Timeline & Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: July Target 2: July
Age/grade group 1, 2014 SY 1, 2024 SY
2014-2015 (mg) 2024-2025 (mg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5..................................... <=1,230 <=935
6-8..................................... <=1,360 <=1,035
9-12.................................... <=1,420 <=1,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Breakfast Program--Sodium Timeline & Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: July Target 2: July
Age/grade group 1, 2014 SY 1, 2024 SY
2014-2015 (mg) 2024-2025 (mg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5..................................... <=540 <=485
6-8..................................... <=600 <=535
9-12.................................... <=640 <=570
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing this final rule, USDA was mindful of the review of
the DRIs for sodium and potassium intake currently underway by The
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Some
commenters said that USDA should extend Target 1 to accommodate the DRI
review, which will inform the public on goals for long-term sodium
reduction. In addition, the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans are
expected to be released by the end of calendar year 2020. USDA agrees
that it is reasonable to extend Target 1, delay Target 2
implementation, and refrain from setting sodium reduction goals beyond
Target 2 until the DRI report and the 2020 Dietary Guidelines are
published and USDA has the opportunity to assess their impact on school
meals. In retaining Target 2, USDA is recognizing the need for further
sodium reduction. However, delaying implementation of Target 2 until
July 1, 2024, will ensure that USDA has the time necessary to make any
regulatory adjustments based on the most current scientific
recommendations, including providing adequate notice to stakeholders of
any such adjustments. In the meantime, the sodium timeline established
by this rule will provide schools and the food industry the regulatory
certainty they need to conduct food procurement and product
reformulation activities. We recognize that regulatory certainty is
essential to incentivize the food industry's efforts to support the
service of wholesome and appealing school meals.
Extending Target 1 is also important for practical reasons. As
noted by several commenters, many schools are not equipped for scratch
cooking, which makes further sodium reduction challenging. Setting a
more flexible approach to sodium reduction allows more time for product
reformulation, school menu adjustments, food service changes, personnel
training, and changes in student preferences. State agencies that
commented on the sodium timeline generally noted that school districts
need more time for sodium reduction.
For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that the sodium
limit applies to the average meal offered during the school week; it
does not apply per day or per meal. Menu planners may offer a
relatively high sodium meal or high sodium food at some point during
the week if meals with lower to moderate sodium content are offered the
rest of the week.
USDA remains committed to strong nutrition standards for school
meals, consistent with the statutory requirement that school meals
reflect the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Our intention is to
ensure that the sodium targets reflect the most current Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and DRIs, are feasible for most schools, and
allow them to plan appealing meals that encourage consumption and
intake of key nutrients that are essential for children's growth and
development. USDA also shares commenter concerns that near-term
implementation of further sodium reduction in schools could potentially
lower the acceptance of meals with lower sodium content by students,
who are currently accustomed to eating foods with higher sodium content
outside of school. This could negatively impact program participation
and contribute to food waste.
We acknowledge that since 2012 schools have made significant
efforts to reduce the sodium content of meals. We encourage families
and communities to support schools' efforts by taking gradual steps to
reduce the sodium content of meals offered to children outside of
schools. Wholesome school meals are only a part of children's daily
food intake, and children will be more likely to eat them if the foods
available to them at home and in the community are also lower in
sodium. Helping students adjust their taste preferences requires
collaboration between schools, parents, and communities. As stated
earlier, student, parent, and community involvement in menu planning is
allowed at 7 CFR 210.12(a). The local school wellness policy at 7 CFR
210.31 also provides an important opportunity to influence the school
nutrition environment at large.
State agencies whose school food authorities are close to meeting
Target 2 may wish to continue their trajectory and implement Target 2
before the required timeline. As allowed in 7 CFR 210.19(e), State
agencies have the ability to set stricter requirements that are not
inconsistent with the minimum nutrition standards for school meals.
USDA will continue to provide Program operators with technical
assistance, training resources, and mentoring to help them offer the
best possible meals. In addition, USDA Foods will continue to provide
food products with no added salt and/or low sodium content for
inclusion in school meals.
This final rule provides flexibility to address sodium challenges
and sets a new timeline to build on the progress made. It is intended
to address commenters' concerns regarding student acceptability and
consumption of meals with lower sodium content, food service
operational issues, food industry's reformulation and innovation
challenges, and the important goal to safeguard the health of millions
of school children. This final rule balances nutrition science,
practical application of requirements, and the need to ensure that
children receive wholesome and appealing meals.
Accordingly, this final rule will amend the following sodium
provisions effective SY 2019-2020:
NSLP (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3)); and
SBP (7 CFR 220.8(f)).
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be significant and
was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Economic Summary
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules
with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one
year). USDA does not anticipate that this final rule is likely to have
an economic impact of $100 million or more in any one year, and
therefore, does not meet the definition of ``economically significant''
[[Page 63784]]
under Executive Order 12866. The RIA for an earlier final rule,
Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs (77 FR 4088, January 26, 2012), underscores the importance of
recognizing the linkage between poor diets and health problems such as
childhood obesity. In addition to the impacts on the health of
children, the RIA also cites information regarding the social costs of
obesity and the additional economic costs associated with direct
medical expenses of obesity. The RIA for the 2012 rule included a
literature review to describe qualitatively the benefits of a
nutritious diet to combat obesity and did not estimate individual
health benefits or decreased medical costs that could be directly
attributed to the changes in the final rule, due to the complex nature
of factors that impact food consumption and obesity.\4\ USDA believes
the specific flexibilities in this final rule are intended to ease
Program operator burden while ensuring the majority of the changes
resulting from the 2012 regulation remain intact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf: ``Because of the complexity of factors that contribute
both to overall food consumption and to obesity, we are not able to
define a level of disease or cost reduction that is attributable to
the changes in meals expected to result from implementation of the
rule. As the rule is projected to make substantial improvements in
meals served to more than half of all school-aged children on an
average school day, we judge that the likelihood is reasonable that
the benefits of the rule exceed the costs, and that the final rule
thus represents a cost-effective means of conforming NSLP and SBP
regulations to the statutory requirements for school meals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary of Agriculture acknowledged the operational
challenges in meeting the meal standards related to flavored milk,
whole grain-rich products, and sodium targets in the May 1, 2017,
Proclamation and committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that
school meal requirements are practical and result in wholesome and
appealing meals. The interim final rule Child Nutrition Programs:
Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements (82 FR
56703, November 30, 2017), established regulations that extend the
school meal flexibilities through SY 2018-2019. For SY 2018-2019, the
regulations provide NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer flavored
low-fat (1 percent fat) milk with the meal and as a beverage for sale
during the school day, and apply the flexibility in the SMP and CACFP
for participants age 6 years and older; extend the State agencies'
option to allow individual school food authorities to include grains
that are not whole grain-rich in the weekly NSLP and SBP menus; and
retain Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP.
This final rule makes specific modifications to the milk, grain,
and sodium requirements beginning in SY 2019-2020. The purpose of this
rule is to ease operational burden and provide school nutrition
professionals the flexibility needed to successfully operate the Child
Nutrition Programs. This final rule makes the following changes
beginning in SY 2019-2020:
Allow NSLP and SBP operators the option to offer flavored
low-fat milk and require that unflavored milk be offered at each meal
service. For consistency, the flavored milk flexibility will be
extended to beverages for sale during the school day, and will also
apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 years and older.
This flexibility will not apply to the Summer Food Service Program as
flavored low-fat milk is already allowed in that Program.
Require that at least half of the weekly grains offered in
the NSLP and SBP be whole grain-rich.
Retain Sodium Target 1 through the end of SY 2023-2024 and
require compliance with Sodium Target 2 in SY 2024-2025, which begins
July 1, 2024.
USDA expects the health benefits of the meal standards, which are
mainly left intact, to be similar to the overall benefits of improving
the diets of children cited in the RIA for the 2012 meal standards
rule. While the changes in this final rule provide flexibilities to the
2012 regulations, the targeted nature of the three specific changes
addresses persistent Program operator and stakeholder challenges with
milk, grain, and sodium requirements. Program operators may exceed
these minimum requirements and must continue to meet the same caloric
and fat limits specified in the 2012 rule. The nation's students will
continue to benefit from the suite of changes in the 2012 regulations
and the health benefits qualitatively described in the 2012 RIA still
apply.
As explained above, this final rule eases the operational
challenges associated with these three requirements while balancing the
nutrition science, as stated in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
and the Program operator's ability to comply with the overall standards
and the importance of ensuring children receive wholesome and appealing
meals. These challenges were cited during a period of decreased meal
consumption and Program participation, and some Program operators
reported offering meals that did not appeal to children. The USDA
Special Nutrition Program Operations Studies for SYs 2012-2013 and
2013-2014 suggested that, as with any major change, there were some
challenges. During the initial years of implementation of the 2012
school meal regulations, nearly one third of SFAs reported challenges
finding products to meet the updated nutrition standards. For example,
food costs, student acceptance, and the availability of products
meeting the standards were the primary challenges anticipated in
implementing the whole grain-rich requirement in full.\5\ According to
USDA administrative data, the largest decrease in NSLP lunch
participation occurred in FY 2013 (-3%) which was the first fiscal year
the standards went into effect. This decrease was driven by a
substantial decrease in the paid lunch category. While paid lunch
participation had decreased since 2008, the drop in 2013 was the
largest decrease in over 20 years. There were other changes implemented
during this timeframe, most notably the requirement to incrementally
increase paid lunch prices; however some of the drop may have been due
to students choosing not to participate due to the new meal standards.
Paid lunch participation continues to decline but at a slower rate in
recent years. Total participation has remained relatively stable for
the past 3 years. While there have been many successes in the
implementation of the 2012 standards,\6\ some Program operators still
face challenges with fully implementing the suite of changes. The
flexibilities in this rule provide relief to these Program operators
allowing them to successfully offer wholesome and appealing meals to
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Standing, Kim, Joe Gasper, Jamee Riley, Laurie May, Frank
Bennici, Adam Chu, and Sujata Dixit-Joshi. Special Nutrition Program
Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and
Practices for School Meals Programs School Year 2012-13. Project
Officer: John R. Endahl. Prepared by Westat for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, October 2016; J. Murdoch
et al. (2016). Special Nutrition Program Operations Study, SY 2013-
14 Report. Prepared by 2M Research Services, LLC. Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Project
Officers: Toija Riggins and John Endahl.
\6\ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Bridging the Gap Release on
School Meals Perceptions in Childhood Obesity. September 2013.
https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2014/06/bridging-the-gap-s-work-on-childhood-obesity.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA is committed to nutrition science but also understands the
importance of practical requirements for Program operators to
successfully operate the Child Nutrition Programs. The changes set
forth in this rule still show progress in school meal nutrition, and
children will continue to be offered and exposed to wholesome school
meals to facilitate nutritious choices in the future. Further, we do
not anticipate
[[Page 63785]]
this final rule will deter the significant progress made to date \7\ by
State and local operators, USDA, and industry manufacturers to achieve
healthy, palatable meals for students. The certainty this rule provides
around the changes to the standards will provide industry the ability
to commit to reformulating products and work towards innovative
solutions. These changes also provide relief to Program operators who
may be meeting the standards but still facing the sustained challenges
addressed in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FNS National Data Bank Administrative Data: 99.8% of lunches
served in fiscal year (FY) 2017 received the performance based
reimbursement for compliance with the meal standards. This includes
lunches served in SFAs granted whole grain exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Impact
Similar to the interim final rule, USDA anticipates minimal if any
costs associated with the changes to the nutrition standards for milk,
grains, and sodium. The overall meal components, macro nutrient, and
calorie requirements for the lunch and breakfast programs remain
unchanged, and it is the Program operators' option to use the milk
flexibility or exceed the minimum whole grain-rich and sodium standards
established in this final rule. These changes are also promulgated in
the context of significant progress made to date by State and local
operators, USDA, and food manufacturers to achieve healthy, appealing
meals for students.
Local operators struggling with one or all of these requirements
are expected to benefit from the more flexible nutrition standards and
be better able to balance the service of wholesome meals with
availability of current and future resources for preparing appealing
meals. The added flexibility for the milk and grain requirements and
the additional time to implement sodium Target 2 are expected to
provide certainty for Program operators to effectively procure food to
develop wholesome and appealing menus.
Milk Flexibility
As stated in the interim final rule, there may be some cases in
which flavored, low-fat milk is slightly more expensive and for some it
might be slightly less expensive than the varieties currently permitted
in the 2012 meal standards rule, but any overall difference in cost is
likely to be minimal. The requirement that unflavored milk be offered
at each school meal service is not expected to impact cost. Unflavored
milk was a popular offering prior to the updated meal standards. In SY
2009-2010, the most commonly offered milks were unflavored, low-fat (73
percent of all daily NSLP menus) and flavored, low-fat (63
percent).Whole milk was offered in fewer than five percent of all daily
menus.\8\ Given that unflavored milk was already a part of the majority
of school meal menus prior to the new standards, the requirement to
offer unflavored along with flavored milk is not anticipated to be an
additional burden to Program operators and is likely a practice Program
operators have already incorporated to satisfy the variety requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Office of Research and Analysis, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment
Study IV, Vol. I: School Foodservice Operations, School
Environments, and Meals Offered and Served, by Mary Kay Fox,
Elizabeth Condon, Mary Kay Crepinsek, et al. Project Officer, Fred
Lesnett Alexandria, VA: November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The changes in this final rule provide Program operators the
flexibility to offer some non-whole grain-rich products that are
appealing to students without the administrative burden of the
exemption process. The requirement that at least half of the weekly
grains offered in NSLP and SBP be whole grain-rich may provide savings
for some Program operators facing challenges procuring certain whole
grain-rich products; however, we expect that as more products become
available, any differential costs associated with whole grain-rich and
non-whole grain-rich products will normalize in the market. The
availability of whole grain-rich products through USDA Foods and the
commercial market has increased significantly since the implementation
of the 2012 meal standards and continues to progress, providing new and
affordable options for local operators to integrate into menus.
Finally, due to the wide variation in local adoption of this
flexibility, any overall savings are likely minimal.
Sodium Flexibility
This final rule extends Sodium Target 1 through school year 2023-
2024 and requires compliance with Sodium Target 2 in school year 2024-
2025. This decision allows more time to develop products that meet the
rule's standards and provides industry with the certainty needed to
continue to develop new appealing products. This sodium reduction
timeline allows for the opportunity for any potential impacts to the
school meal programs from the updated DRI report and the 2020 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans to be considered. The extension of Target 1
and the resulting delay of the implementation of Target 2 to SY 2024-
2025 provide adequate time to accommodate any potential changes,
including regulatory adjustments to incorporate updated scientific
recommendations. USDA recognizes the need for sodium reduction in
school meals and is still retaining Target 2. USDA anticipates that
Program operators will continue their efforts to reduce sodium in
school meals while industry will continue to work towards lower sodium
formulations. We do not anticipate any additional costs associated with
this change as it allows additional time for Program operators and
industry to reduce sodium levels in meals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the RIA for the final rule, Nutrition Standards in the
National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088),
meeting the first sodium target was not estimated as a separate cost
due to the fact that the first target was meant to be met using food
currently available when the target went into effect in SY 2014-2015
(or by making minimal changes to the foods offered). While the
regulatory impact analyses did not estimate a separate cost to
implement Sodium Target 1, it did factor in higher labor costs for
producing meals that meet all the meal standards at full
implementation to factor in the costs of schools replacing packaged
goods to food prepared from scratch. Over 5 years, the final rule
estimated that total SFAs costs would increase by $1.6 billion to
meet all standards. The cost estimate extended only through FY 2016,
two years before the final rule's second sodium target would have
taken effect. The second sodium target was designed to be met with
the help of industry changing food processing technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of Public Comments and USDA Response
There were about 20 comment submissions that provided input on
risks or benefits of the interim final rule. The American Public Health
Association submitted a form letter representing 15 individuals who
claimed the USDA underestimated the reduced health benefits. They
expressed concern that the flexibilities could lower the estimated
health benefits over time. They indicated that the Economic Summary
does not provide a sufficiently thorough assessment of lost benefits
and concluded that, in the final rule, USDA must calculate the reduced
benefit to children for any changes it makes to the school nutrition
standards related to sodium, whole grains, or flavored milk.
Similarly, the American Heart Association said USDA states in the
interim final rule that the benefits would be similar as the original
RIA conducted on the 2012 rule. They questioned how the impact could
remain the same when children are served more sodium, fewer whole
grain-rich foods, and milk with higher calories and saturated fat. They
stated
[[Page 63786]]
that USDA should recalculate the RIA and indicate the reduced health
benefit caused by these changes to the school nutrition standards.
USDA Response
The following sections review the changes and provide additional
information regarding potential nutritional impacts.
Milk Flexibility
In this final rule, USDA will allow NSLP and SBP operators the
option to offer flavored, low-fat milk and require that unflavored milk
be offered at each meal service. The flavored milk flexibility will be
extended to beverages for sale during the school day, and will also
apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 years and older.
As noted in the interim final rule, the regulatory impact analyses
for the final rule, Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch
and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088), did not estimate the health
benefits associated with specific changes in meal components such as
the exclusion of flavored, low-fat milk. USDA's decision to allow
flavored low-fat milk reflects the concerns of declining milk
consumption and the importance of the key nutrients provided by
milk.\10\ Menu planners must make necessary adjustments in the weekly
menu to account for the additional calories and fat content associated
with offering flavored low-fat milk because this final rule does not
change the upper caloric and fat limits specified in the 2012
regulations. In addition, the requirement to offer unflavored milk at
each meal service ensures students will have access to a choice in milk
types and also prevents schools from only offering different flavored
milk types to satisfy the milk variety requirement. USDA estimates the
nutritional impact of allowing flavored, low-fat milk to be minimal
with the added calories and fat to be managed within the upper caloric
and fat limits. Further, student intake of key nutrients provided
through milk will increase if milk consumption increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-30/pdf/2017-25799.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Grain-Rich Flexibility
The interim final rule retains through SY 2018-2019 the State
agency's discretion to grant whole grain-rich exemptions to school food
authorities that demonstrate hardship. School food authorities
receiving an exemption must offer at least half of the weekly grains as
whole grain-rich.
Starting in SY 2019-2020, this final rule will require that at
least half of the weekly grains offered in the NSLP and SBP meet the
whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining
grain items offered must be enriched. This decision was made to reduce
Program operator burden while still providing children access to whole
grain-rich items. The requirement to offer all whole grain-rich items
was never fully implemented due to the exemption process, and about 20
percent of school food authorities still face challenges and apply for
exemptions (over 4,000 school food authorities for SY 2017-2018).\11\
The most commonly requested items for exemption were pasta, tortillas,
biscuits, and grits. While it is important to recognize the existing
challenges with some whole grain-rich items, the vast majority (80
percent) of school food authorities strived to meet the requirement and
did not request exemptions in SY 2017-2018. The impact of reducing the
requirement from all grains offered to half the grains offered as whole
grain-rich recognizes the importance of including whole grains in
children's diets without increasing operational burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDA informal State reported data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exemption process has been in place since the requirement for
all grains to be whole grain-rich went into effect in SY 2014-2015.
This exemption process placed a burden on Program operators and created
uncertainty for stakeholders. As noted above, the majority of the
exemption requests were for a few items and the process to apply for an
exemption varied by State. Retaining the requirement that at least half
the grains are whole grain-rich is a familiar requirement for Program
operators as it was in place for two years before the requirement
shifted to all grains offered be whole grain-rich. USDA believes that
the requirement for half the grains to be whole grain-rich is to be
viewed as a minimum amount and Program operators will likely continue
to serve whole grain-rich items that have been successfully integrated
into menus while allowing for the few items that are not as successful
to still be offered.
USDA does not anticipate Program operators will reduce the amount
of whole grain-rich offerings if they already exceed the retained
standard, although that is a possibility. Rather, USDA believes that
this change will allow the time necessary for more palatable and widely
available whole grain-rich items to continue to be integrated into
menus. USDA does not have evidence that setting the whole grain-rich
requirement to a percentage greater than half and less than all grains
will successfully address Program operator concerns. Reinstating the
requirement that half of grains must be whole grain-rich is familiar to
Program operators and provides the flexibility for some Program
operators to integrate palatable whole grain-rich items into their
menus while still serving items that are appealing to the students.
USDA recognizes that re-implementing the whole grain-rich
requirement in place from SY 2012-2013 through SY 2013-2014 will result
in some offered grain items not transitioning to whole grain-rich, and
that children may not receive some key nutrients associated with whole
grain-rich items. However, this rule will retain the requirement that
the grains that are not whole must be enriched.
As discussed above, the vast majority of schools are expected to
meet the whole-grain-rich requirements in SY 2017-2018 and did not
request exemptions, demonstrating that the majority of schools are
moving toward meeting the whole grain-rich standard. This rule, by
continuing to require that at least half of the offered grains items be
whole grain-rich, will continue to ensure that children receive whole
grain-rich products as part of their school meals. The specific
flexibilities in this final rule will ease Program operator burden
while ensuring the majority of the changes resulting from the 2012
regulation remain intact. There are select products that are difficult
to prepare, procure, or do not appeal to students that make it
challenging to meet the requirement that all weekly grains offered must
be whole grain-rich. Industry has worked and continues to work
diligently to increase the number of products reformulated to be whole
grain-rich while still appealing to students. While this shows
significant progress, the continued use of waivers and challenges faced
by Program operators to serve all whole grain-rich items persisted.
Moving back to the requirement that at least half of the grains offered
be whole grain-rich provides the stability for Program operators to add
slowly and successfully more whole grain-rich items into menus without
undergoing a burdensome exemption process. The requirement for at least
half of the grain offered to be whole grain rich is familiar to Program
operators and USDA does not have any evidence that setting the standard
at a higher percentage would successfully alleviate the challenges.
Finally, this requirement is the minimum limit, providing Program
operators the choice
[[Page 63787]]
to exceed this and offer more whole grain-rich items as they develop
wholesome and appealing menus.
USDA believes this change will allow more time for industry to
develop appealing whole grain-rich items as well as provide more
opportunities for training and technical assistance to better
incorporate whole grain-rich items. Additionally, USDA Foods, which
makes up about 15 to 20 percent of the food items offered on an average
school day, continues to develop new whole grain-rich products each
year.
Re-instating the requirement that at least half of the grains
offered be whole grain-rich will provide Program operators the local
control necessary to continue to serve items that meet local
preferences while still exposing students to nutritious whole grain-
rich products.
Sodium Flexibility
The interim final rule retained Sodium Target 1 in the NSLP and SBP
through SY 2018-2019 (7 CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(f),
respectively), and requested comments on the long-term availability of
this flexibility. It also retained Target 2 and the final target as
part of the sodium reduction timeline. This final rule will extend
Target 1 through the end of SY 2023-2024, require compliance with
Sodium Target 2 starting in SY 2024-2025, and eliminate the Final
Target that would have gone into effect in SY 2022-2023. USDA is
responding to the challenges associated with reducing the sodium level
in school meals.
The impact of extending Sodium Target 1 through SY 2023-2024
increases the average daily sodium level permitted by about 55-70mg for
breakfast and 300-340mg for lunch depending on the age/grade group
compared to Sodium Target 2. Sodium Target 1 is about 90 to 93 percent
of the daily upper intake level for both lunch and breakfast.
Table 1--Baseline Sodium and Target Levels for SBP and NSLP Combined Compared to Recommended Daily Intake Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline average Total school meals (breakfast + lunch sodium target) Recommended daily sodium intake
sodium level as (mg) level (mg)
Age/grade group offered before ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 regulations Tolerable upper
(mg) Target 1 Target 2 Final target \1\ Child age level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5................................... 1,950 1,770 1,420 1,070 4 to 8 1,900
6-8................................... 2,149 1,960 1,570 1,180 9 to 13 2,200
9-12.................................. 2,274 2,060 1,650 1,240 14-18 2,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Daily Tolerable Upper Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5................................... 102.6% 93.2% 74.7% 56.3%
6-8................................... 97.7% 89.1% 71.4% 53.6%
9-12.................................. 98.9% 89.6% 71.7% 53.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final Target is presented for analysis purposes only as this rule will remove the Final Target that would have gone into effect in school year
2022-2023.
The average baseline sodium levels for school meals prior to the
updated standards made up 98 percent to over 100 percent of the
tolerable upper level of daily sodium intake. This extension of Target
1 and delay in Target 2 provides time for the DRI report and the 2020
Dietary Guidelines to be published, and for USDA to consider the
updated information and potential impact on school meals. This timeline
allows for any adjustments to be made, including regulatory changes, if
needed, to incorporate any updated scientific information regarding
sodium. USDA is retaining Target 2 recognizing the need for further
sodium reduction beyond Target 1. The additional time also allows for
Program operators to slowly introduce lower sodium foods to students
and for industry to develop consistent lower sodium products that are
palatable for students.
School children are consuming a considerable amount of sodium, and
school meals contribute to their daily total. On average, most students
consume 14 percent of their daily sodium intake at breakfast, 31
percent at lunch, 39 percent at dinner, and the remaining 16 percent
through snacks. More than 9 in 10 U.S. school children eat more sodium
than the age-specific Tolerable Upper Intake Level established by the
Food and Nutrition Board, NASEM (over 130 to 150 percent of the daily
recommended amount).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Sodium Intake among US School-Aged Children: National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2012 Quader, Zerleen
S. et al. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Volume
117, Issue 1, 39-47.e5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important that the sodium level in school meals is gradually
reduced to assist in introducing children to lower sodium foods.
Delaying the implementation of Sodium Target 1 provides the certainty
for industry members to continue to develop and test lower sodium foods
for both the school meal programs and the general public.
Sodium Target 2 makes up about 71 to 75 percent of total upper
intake level. This continued reduction balances the need for strong
nutrition standards with the operational concerns and student
acceptance of school meals. The elimination of the Final Target will
allow 55-70mg more sodium for breakfast and 300-340mg for lunch. The
Final Target would have made up about 54 to 56 percent of the total
upper intake level.
The extension of Target 1 and delay in Target 2 provide the
additional time needed for USDA to assess the DRI report and the 2020
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are scheduled for release at
the end for 2020. Extending the Sodium Target 1 through SY 2023-2024
allows USDA to incorporate the latest scientific evidence into the
school meal standards, including time needed for potential regulatory
changes.
As noted earlier, we understand that there has been significant
progress to date with sodium reduction in school meals. The additional
time this rule provides will also enable Program operators to continue
to progress, while allowing industry partners to continue to develop
innovative solutions to lower sodium foods that can be served in the
school meal programs.
Other Comments
An individual commenter said strict nutrition standards without
reimbursement from the USDA impose high costs to feed children healthy
[[Page 63788]]
meals in small schools, and some participating schools are considering
leaving the program due to a low frequency of low-income children
buying school lunch, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. The
commenter concluded that this rule will increase student participation
in purchasing school meals and thus help schools compensate for loss of
revenue and high cost expenditures.
USDA believes that adding flexibility to the nutrition standards
will allow Program operators additional time to work with available
products to provide wholesome and appealing meals to students within
available resources. This will help increase student consumption of
meals and reduce waste and revenue loss. While the changes resulting
from the 2012 regulations may not have resulted in long-term impacts
for participation in some schools,\13\ USDA understands there is a wide
variation in school food authorities and challenges encountered by
Program operators. The changes in this final rule will provide the
local level control necessary to successfully operate the school meal
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Impact of the 2010 U.S. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act on
School Breakfast and Lunch Participation Rates Between 2008 and 2015
Nicole Vaudrin MS, RD, Kristen Lloyd MPH, Michael J. Yedidia Ph.D.,
MPH, Michael Todd Ph.D., and Punam Ohri-Vachaspati Ph.D., RD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13771
This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. It alleviates
the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium requirements in the Child
Nutrition Program and provides flexibilities similar to those currently
available as a result only of appropriations legislation in effect for
SY 2017-2018 and administrative actions.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. Because this final rule adds
flexibility to current Child Nutrition Program regulations, the changes
implemented through this final rule are expected to benefit small
entities operating meal programs under 7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, and
226. The impacts are not expected to be significant.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or 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 Department to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule.
This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
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, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
The NSLP, SMP, SBP, and the CACFP are listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under NSLP No. 10.555, SMP No. 10.556, SBP
No. 10.553, and CACFP No. 10.558, respectively, and are subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. Since the Child Nutrition Programs are
State-administered, USDA's FNS Regional Offices have formal and
informal discussions with State and local officials, including
representatives of Indian Tribal Organizations, on an ongoing basis
regarding program requirements and operations. This provides FNS with
the opportunity to receive regular input from program administrators
and contributes to the development of feasible program requirements.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the impact of this final rule on
State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not
have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the
Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions
of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be
exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation
4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify any major civil
rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis
of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After a
careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined
that this rule is not expected to limit or reduce the ability of
protected classes of individuals to participate in the NSLP, SMP, SBP,
and CACFP or have a disproportionate adverse impact on the protected
classes. The Civil Rights Impact Analysis is available for public
inspection under the Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2017-
0021.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies
to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government
basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FNS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to the best of its knowledge, have
tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175.
If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of
Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is
[[Page 63789]]
provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein
are not expressly mandated by Congress. Tribal representatives were
informed about this rulemaking on March 14, 2018.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part
1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve all
collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
The provisions of this final rule do not impose new information
collection requirements subject to approval by the OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies
to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Grant programs-education, Grant programs--health, Infants and
children, Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus agricultural
commodities.
7 CFR Part 215
Food assistance programs, Grant programs--education, Grant
program--health, Infants and children, Milk, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 220
Grant programs--education, Grant programs--health, Infants and
children, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School
breakfast and lunch programs.
7 CFR Part 226
Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food assistance programs, Grant
programs, Grant programs--health, American Indians, Individuals with
disabilities, Infants and children, Intergovernmental relations, Loan
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210, 215, 220, and 226 are amended as
follows:
PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.
0
2. In Sec. 210.10:
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, revise the table;
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A), second sentence, remove ``ppendix A'' and
add in its place ``appendix A''; and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B), (d)(1)(i), and (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 210.10 Meal requirements for lunches and requirements for
afterschool snacks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lunch meal pattern
-----------------------------------------------
Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Components................................................. Amount of Food \a\ per Week
(minimum per day)
-----------------------------------------------
Fruits (cups) \b\............................................... 2\1/2\ ( \1/2\ 2\1/2\ ( \1/2\ 5 (1)\1/2\
) )
Vegetables (cups) \b\........................................... 3\3/4\ ( \3/4\ 3\3/4\ ( \3/4\ 5 (1)
) )
Dark green \c\.............................................. \1/2\ \1/2\ \1/2\
Red/Orange \c\.............................................. \3/4\ \3/4\ 1\1/4\
Beans and peas (legumes) \c\................................ \1/2\ \1/2\ \1/2\
Starchy \c\................................................. \1/2\ \1/2\ \1/2\
Other c d................................................... \1/2\ \1/2\ \3/4\
Additional Vegetables to Reach Total \e\........................ 1 1 1\1/2\
Grains (oz eq) \f\.............................................. 8-9 (1) 8-10 (1) 10-12 (2)
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq)................................... 8-10 (1) 9-10 (1) 10-12 (2)
Fluid milk (cups) \g\........................................... 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min-max calories (kcal) \h\..................................... 550-650 600-700 750-850
Saturated fat (% of total calories) \h\......................... <10 <10 <10
Sodium Target 2 (mg) h i........................................ <=935 <=1,035 <=1,080
-----------------------------------------------
Trans fat h j................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per
serving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Food items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is \1/8\
cup.
\b\ One quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as \1/2\ cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as \1/2\ cup of
vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must
be 100% full-strength.
\c\ Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served.
\d\ This category consists of ``Other vegetables'' as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(E) of this section. For
the purposes of the NSLP, the ``Other vegetables'' requirement may be met with any additional amounts from the
dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of
this section.
\e\ Any vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement.
\f\ At least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich as specified in FNS guidance, and the
remaining grain items offered must be enriched.
\g\ All fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be unflavored or
flavored provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service.
\h\ The average daily calories for a 5-day school week menu must be within the range (at least the minimum and
no more than the maximum values). Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added
to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of
minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent are not allowed.
\i\ Sodium Target 1 is effective from July 1, 2014 (SY 2014-2015) through June 30, 2024 (SY 2023-2024). Sodium
Target 2 (shown) is effective July 1, 2024 (SY 2024-2025).
[[Page 63790]]
\j\ Food products and ingredients must contain zero grams of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Daily and weekly servings. The grains component is based on
minimum daily servings plus total servings over a 5-day school week.
Schools serving lunch 6 or 7 days per week must increase the weekly
grains quantity by approximately 20 percent (\1/5\) for each additional
day. When schools operate less than 5 days per week, they may decrease
the weekly quantity by approximately 20 percent (\1/5\) for each day
less than 5. The servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other
grain/bread varieties are specified in FNS guidance. At least half of
the grains offered weekly must meet the whole grain-rich criteria
specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items offered must
be enriched.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Schools must offer students a variety (at least two different
options) of fluid milk. All milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1
percent fat or less). Milk with higher fat content is not allowed. Low-
fat or fat-free lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid milk may also be
offered. Milk may be unflavored or flavored provided that unflavored
milk is offered at each meal service.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Sodium. School lunches offered to each age/grade group must
meet, on average over the school week, the levels of sodium specified
in the following table within the established deadlines:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National School Lunch Program Sodium timeline & limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: July Target 2: July
1, 2014 (SY 1, 2024 (SY
Age/grade group 2014-2015) 2024-2025)
(mg) (mg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5..................................... <=1,230 <=935
6-8..................................... <=1,360 <=1,035
9-12.................................... <=1,420 <=1,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 210.11 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 210.11, in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii), (m)(2)(ii), and
(m)(3)(ii), remove the words ``from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019,
school year 2018-2019'' before the semicolon.
PART 215--SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN
0
4. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779.
Sec. 215.7a [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 215.7a, in paragraph (a)(3), remove the words ``from July
1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 (school year 2018-2019)''.
PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
0
6. The authority citation for part 220 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.
0
7. In Sec. 220.8:
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, revise the table; and
0
b. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B), (d), and (f)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 220.8 Meal requirements for breakfasts.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakfast meal pattern
-----------------------------------------------
Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Components................................................. Amount of Food \a\ per Week
(minimum per day)
-----------------------------------------------
Fruits (cups) b c............................................... 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Vegetables (cups) b c........................................... 0 0 0
Dark green.................................................. 0 0 0
Red/Orange.................................................. 0 0 0
Beans and peas (legumes).................................... 0 0 0
Starchy..................................................... 0 0 0
Other....................................................... 0 0 0
Grains (oz eq) \d\.............................................. 7-10 (1) 8-10 (1) 9-10 (1)
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) \e\............................... 0 0 0
Fluid milk (cups) \f\........................................... 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min-max calories (kcal) g h..................................... 350-500 400-550 450-600
Saturated fat (% of total calories) \h\......................... <10 <10 <10
Sodium Target 2 (mg) h i........................................ <=485 <=535 <=570
-----------------------------------------------
Trans fat h j................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per
serving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Food items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is \1/8\
cup.
\b\ One quarter cup of dried fruit counts as \1/2\ cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as \1/2\ cup of
vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must
be 100% full-strength.
\c\ Schools must offer 1 cup of fruit daily and 5 cups of fruit weekly. Vegetables may be substituted for
fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange,
beans and peas (legumes) or ``Other vegetables'' subgroups, as defined in Sec. 210.10(c)(2)(iii) of this
chapter.
\d\ At least half of the grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich as specified in FNS guidance, and the
remaining grain items offered must be enriched. Schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat alternate for 1
oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met.
\e\ There is no meat/meat alternate requirement.
\f\ All fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be unflavored or
flavored provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service.
\g\ The average daily calories for a 5-day school week menu must be within the range (at least the minimum and
no more than the maximum values).
[[Page 63791]]
\h\ Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within
the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and
fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed.
\i\ Sodium Target 1 is effective from July 1, 2014 (SY 2014-2015) through June 30, 2024 (SY 2023-2024). Sodium
Target 2 (shown) is effective July 1, 2024 (SY 2024-2025).
\j\ Food products and ingredients must contain zero grams of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) Daily and weekly servings. The grains component is based on
minimum daily servings plus total servings over a 5-day school week.
Schools serving breakfast 6 or 7 days per week must increase the weekly
grains quantity by approximately 20 percent (\1/5\) for each additional
day. When schools operate less than 5 days per week, they may decrease
the weekly quantity by approximately 20 percent (\1/5\) for each day
less than 5. The servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other
grain/bread varieties are specified in FNS guidance. At least half of
the grains offered weekly must meet the whole grain-rich criteria
specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items offered must
be enriched.
* * * * *
(d) Fluid milk requirement. Breakfast must include a serving of
fluid milk as a beverage or on cereal or used in part for each purpose.
Schools must offer students a variety (at least two different options)
of fluid milk. All fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1
percent fat or less). Milk with higher fat content is not allowed. Low-
fat or fat-free lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid milk may also be
offered. Milk may be unflavored or flavored provided that unflavored
milk is offered at each meal service. Schools must also comply with
other applicable fluid milk requirements in Sec. 210.10(d)(1) through
(4) of this part.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Sodium. School breakfasts offered to each age/grade group must
meet, on average over the school week, the levels of sodium specified
in the following table within the established deadlines:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School breakfast program Sodium timeline & limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: July Target 2: July
1, 2014 (SY 1, 2024 (SY
Age/grade group 2014-2015) 2024-2025)
(mg) (mg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-5..................................... <=540 <=485
6-8..................................... <=600 <=535
9-12.................................... <=640 <=570
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 226--CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM
0
8. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a,
1765 and 1766).
0
9. In Sec. 226.20:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv), remove the words ``from July 1,
2018, through June 30, 2019 (school year 2018-2019)''; and
0
b. Revise the tables in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 226.20 Requirements for meals.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Child And Adult Care Food Program--Breakfast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food components and food items Ages 13-18 \2\ (at-
\1\ risk afterschool
Ages 1-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-12 programs and Adult participants
emergency shelters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select the Appropriate Components for a Reimbursable Meal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid Milk \3\................... 4 fluid ounces...... 6 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces..... 8 fluid ounces.
Vegetables, fruits, or portions \1/4\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
of both \4\.
Grains (oz eq): 5 6 7 .................... .................... .................... ................... ..............................
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ slice......... \1/2\ slice......... 1 slice............. 1 slice............ 2 slices.
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ serving....... \1/2\ serving....... 1 serving........... 1 serving.......... 2 servings.
bread product, such as
biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... 1 cup.
or fortified cooked
breakfast cereal \8\, cereal
grain, and/or pasta.
Whole grain-rich, enriched or .................... .................... .................... ................... ..............................
fortified ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal (dry, cold)
8 9.
Flakes or rounds......... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... 1 cup............... 1 cup.............. 2 cups.
Puffed cereal............ \3/4\ cup........... \3/4\ cup........... 1 \1/4\ cup......... 1 \1/4\ cup........ 2 \1/2\ cup.
Granola.................. \1/8\ cup........... \1/8\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:
\1\ Must serve all three components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool participants.
\2\ Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
[[Page 63792]]
\3\ Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or \3/4\ cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8
ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
\4\ Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
\5\ At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards meeting the grains
requirement.
\6\ Meat and meat alternates may be used to meet the entire grains requirement a maximum of three times a week. One ounce of meat and meat alternates is
equal to one ounce equivalent of grains.
\7\ Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of creditable grains.
\8\ Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry
cereal).
\9\ Beginning October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size specified in this section for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals must be served. Until October 1,
2019, the minimum serving size for any type of ready-to-eat breakfast cereal is \1/4\ cup for children ages 1-2; \1/3\ cup for children ages 3-5; \3/
4\ cup for children ages 6-12, and 1 \1/2\ cups for adult participants.
(2) * * *
Child And Adult Care Food Program--Lunch and Supper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food components and food items Ages 13-18 \2\ (at-
\1\ risk afterschool
Ages 1-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-12 programs and Adult participants
emergency shelters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select the Appropriate Components for a Reimbursable Meal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid Milk \3\................... 4 fluid ounces...... 6 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces..... 8 fluid ounces. \4\
Meat/meat alternates (edible .................... .................... .................... ................... ..............................
portion as served):
Lean meat, poultry, or fish.. 1 ounce............. 1 \1/2\ ounces...... 2 ounces............ 2 ounces........... 2 ounces.
Tofu, soy products, or 1 ounce............. 1 \1/2\ ounces...... 2 ounces............ 2 ounces........... 2 ounces.
alternate protein products
\5\.
Cheese....................... 1 ounce............. 1 \1/2\ ounces...... 2 ounces............ 2 ounces........... 2 ounces.
Large egg.................... \1/2\............... \3/4\............... 1................... 1.................. 1.
Cooked dry beans or peas..... \1/4\ cup........... \3/8\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
Peanut butter or soy nut 2 Tbsp.............. 3 Tbsp.............. 4 Tbsp.............. 4 Tbsp............. 4 Tbsp.
butter or other nut or seed
butters.
Yogurt, plain or flavored 4 ounces or \1/2\ 6 ounces or \3/4\ 8 ounces or 1 cup... 8 ounces or 1 cup.. 8 ounces or 1 cup.
unsweetened or sweetened \6\. cup. cup.
The following may be used to
meet no more than 50% of the
requirement:
Peanuts, soy nuts, tree \1/2\ ounce = 50%... \3/4\ ounce = 50%... 1 ounce = 50%....... 1 ounce = 50%...... 1 ounce = 50%.
nuts, or seeds, as
listed in program
guidance, or an
equivalent quantity of
any combination of the
above meat/meat
alternates (1 ounce of
nuts/seeds = 1 ounce of
cooked lean meat,
poultry, or fish).
Vegetables \7\................... \1/8\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
Fruits 7 8 \1/8\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
Grains (oz eq): 9 10 .................... .................... .................... ................... ..............................
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ slice......... \1/2\ slice......... 1 slice............. 1 slice............ 2 slices.
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ serving....... \1/2\ serving....... 1 serving........... 1 serving.......... 2 servings.
bread product, such as
biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... 1 cup.
or fortified cooked
breakfast cereal\11\, cereal
grain, and/or pasta.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:
\1\ Must serve all five components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool and adult participants.
\2\ Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
\3\ Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or \3/4\ cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8
ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
\4\ A serving of fluid milk is optional for suppers served to adult participants.
\5\ Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to part 226 of this chapter.
[[Page 63793]]
\6\ Yogurt must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces.
\7\ Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
\8\ A vegetable may be used to meet the entire fruit requirement. When two vegetables are served at lunch or supper, two different kinds of vegetables
must be served.
\9\ At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains
requirement.
\10\ Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of the creditable grain.
\11\ Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry
cereal).
(3) * * *
Child And Adult Care Food Program--Snack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food components and food items Ages 13-18 \2\ (at-
\1\ risk afterschool
Ages 1-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-12 programs and Adult participants
emergency shelters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Two of the Five Components for a Reimbursable Meal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid Milk \3\................... 4 fluid ounces...... 6 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces...... 8 fluid ounces..... 8 fluid ounces.
Meat/meat alternates (edible
portion as served):
Lean meat, poultry, or fish.. \1/2\ ounce......... \1/2\ ounce......... 1 ounce............. 1 ounce............ 1 ounce.
Tofu, soy products, or \1/2\ ounce......... \1/2\ ounce......... 1 ounce............. 1 ounce............ 1 ounce.
alternate protein products
\4\.
Cheese....................... \1/2\ ounce......... \1/2\ ounce......... 1 ounce............. 1 ounce............ 1 ounce.
Large egg.................... \1/2\............... \1/2\............... \1/2\............... \1/2\.............. \1/2\.
Cooked dry beans or peas..... \1/8\ cup........... \1/8\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup.......... \1/4\ cup.
Peanut butter or soy nut 1 Tbsp.............. 1 Tbsp.............. 2 Tbsp.............. 2 Tbsp............. 2 Tbsp.
butter or other nut or seed
butters.
Yogurt, plain or flavored 2 ounces or \1/4\ 2 ounces or \1/4\ 4 ounces or \1/2\ 4 ounces or \1/2\ 4 ounces or \1/2\ cup.
unsweetened or sweetened \5\. cup. cup. cup. cup.
Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, \1/2\ ounce......... \1/2\ ounce......... 1 ounce............. 1 ounce............ 1 ounce.
or seeds.
Vegetables \6\................... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \3/4\ cup........... \3/4\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
Fruits \6\....................... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \3/4\ cup........... \3/4\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
Grains (oz eq): 7 8
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ slice......... \1/2\ slice......... 1 slice............. 1 slice............ 1 slice.
bread.
Whole grain-rich or enriched \1/2\ serving....... \1/2\ serving....... 1 serving........... 1 serving.......... 1 serving.
bread product, such as
biscuit, roll, or muffin.
Whole grain-rich, enriched, \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup.......... \1/2\ cup.
or fortified cooked
breakfast cereal \9\, cereal
grain, and/or pasta.
Whole grain-rich, enriched,
or fortified ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal (dry, cold)
9 10.
Flakes or rounds......... \1/2\ cup........... \1/2\ cup........... 1 cup............... 1 cup.............. 1 cup.
Puffed cereal............ \3/4\ cup........... \3/4\ cup........... 1 \1/4\ cup......... 1 \1/4\ cup........ 1 \1/4\ cup.
Granola.................. \1/8\ cup........... \1/8\ cup........... \1/4\ cup........... \1/4\ cup.......... \1/4\ cup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes:
\1\ Select two of the five components for a reimbursable snack. Only one of the two components may be a beverage.
\2\ Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs.
\3\ Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for
children two through five years old. Must be low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free (skim) milk for children six years old and older and adults,
and may be unflavored or flavored. For adult participants, 6 ounces (weight) or \3/4\ cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8
ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal.
\4\ Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to Part 226 of this chapter.
\5\ Yogurt must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces.
\6\ Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day.
\7\At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains
requirement.
\8\ Beginning October 1, 2019, ounce equivalents are used to determine the quantity of the creditable grains.
\9\ Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry
cereal).
10 Beginning October 1, 2019, the minimum serving size specified in this section for ready-to-eat breakfast cereals must be served. Until October 1,
2019, the minimum serving size for any type of ready-to-eat breakfast cereal is \1/4\ cup for children ages 1-2; \1/3\ cup for children ages 3-5; and
\3/4\ cup for children ages 6-12, children ages 13-18, and adult participants.
[[Page 63794]]
* * * * *
Dated: December 6, 2018.
Brandon Lipps,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-26762 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
