[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38839-38844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18433]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 38839]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 210, 220, 225 and 226

RIN 0584-AC82


Modification of the ``Vegetable Protein Products'' Requirements 
for the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer 
Food Service Program and Child and Adult Care Food Program

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition Service is proposing to update the 
requirements on using ``Vegetable Protein Products'' in the National 
School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer Food Service 
Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Program (the Child Nutrition 
Programs) given changes in food technology since the current provisions 
were adopted. The major changes proposed are to: rename ``Vegetable 
Protein Products'' as ``Alternate Protein Products;'' remove the limit 
on the amount of these products that can be used; eliminate the 
requirement that alternate protein products be specially fortified; and 
update the test used to determine protein quality. These proposed 
changes would give menu planners more flexibility to incorporate these 
products into their menus along with the traditional protein sources of 
meat, poultry and seafood.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on 
or before September 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Mr. Robert M. Eadie, 3101 Park 
Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. All written submissions will 
be available for public inspection in Room 1007, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, Virginia during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marion Hinners or Ms. Janice 
Fabina, at the above address or by telephone at (703) 305-2590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

What Are Alternate Protein Products and How Are They Used?

    In the 1960's, protein products processed from vegetable sources, 
primarily soybeans, became more prevalent. Because of their low cost 
and their protein quality, vegetable protein products could be used 
with meat, poultry and seafood in food items. This blending enhanced 
use of both meat and vegetable protein products. As the use of 
alternate protein products increased, we felt that we needed to 
determine how such products would be credited in the Child Nutrition 
Programs (CN Programs) in order to give menu planners flexibility while 
maintaining the nutritional quality of our meals.
    Originally, our policies concerning alternate protein products were 
delineated in informal guidance. In 1983, however, we amended our 
regulations by adding a section entitled ``Alternate Foods for Meals--
Vegetable Protein Products'' which was located in Appendix A, to 7 CFR 
Part 210, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); 7 CFR Part 225, the 
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); and 7 CFR Part 226, the Child and 
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Appendix A to Part 210 also applied to 
7 CFR Part 220, the School Breakfast Program (SBP).

What Are Vegetable Protein Products (VPP)?

    Appendix A to the various CFR Parts identified above defines 
vegetable (plant) protein products as foods which are processed so that 
some portion of the nonprotein constituents of the vegetable is 
removed. These vegetable protein products (VPP) are safe and suitable 
edible products produced from vegetable (plant) sources such as 
soybeans, peanuts, wheat, and corn. Because they are both nutritious 
and versatile, VPP may be included in meals offered in the various CN 
Programs.
    Currently, VPP fortified with iron and zinc may constitute up to 30 
percent of the meat/meat alternate component of the food-based menu 
planning approaches used in all of the CN Programs. However, the VPP 
fortification and limitation requirements do not apply to menus planned 
under the nutrient standard approaches of the NSLP and the SBP. The 
nutrient standard menu planning approaches incorporate nutrient 
analysis into the process and consequently do not need the assurances 
provided by the fortification and limitation requirements applied to 
the food-based approaches.

What are the Current Regulatory Provisions Concerning VPP?

    These provisions, all contained in Appendix A to 7 CFR Parts 210, 
225, and 226, are:
    (1) use of the names and nutritional requirements for VPP developed 
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
    (2) use of VPP in the dry, partially hydrated form, or fully 
hydrated form;
    (3) establishment of appropriate hydration of dry VPP by setting 
the protein quantity requirements for a product ``when hydrated or 
formulated;''
    (4) use of VPP only in combination with meat, poultry or seafood 
for the meat/meat alternate component;
    (5) use of up to 30 percent (by uncooked weight) of fully hydrated 
VPP as a substitute for meat, poultry, or seafood; and
    (6) use of fortified VPP meeting USDA-FNS specifications.

Why is the Amount of VPP Limited?

    When the VPP requirements were originally incorporated into the 
regulations, nutritionists felt that VPP should be limited to no more 
than a 30 percent substitution level for raw or cooked meat, poultry, 
or seafood. This limit was established because data from studies 
available at that time indicated that the bioavailability of iron and 
zinc decreased when foods were formulated with more than 30 percent 
VPP. Given these findings, we adopted the 30 percent limitation on VPP 
use as our policy.

Why Does FNS Require VPP to be Fortified?

    Even with the limited use of VPP, we were still concerned that 
children would not receive adequate levels of certain nutrients. 
Therefore, as an added precaution, we required that VPP used in the CN 
Programs be fortified with iron and zinc. We did this so that the fully 
hydrated VPP was similar to meat

[[Page 38840]]

in both nutrients and the bioavailability of minerals.

Why is FNS Proposing to Change the Provisions on VPP?

    A lot of progress has been made in the areas of nutrition science, 
food technology and analysis in the 25 years that have elapsed since 
the initial formulation of our policies on use of VPP. We need to 
update our requirements on VPP in conjunction with the continued use of 
animal sources of protein.
    We are also looking for ways to enhance flexibility for menu 
planners and to assist them in meeting the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans. Additional ways are especially needed to help menu planners 
reduce fat and saturated fat in meals while still maintaining calorie 
levels and cost-effectiveness.
    We also received requests from schools, sponsors and the food 
industry to allow food items with as much as 100 percent VPP. 
Unrestricted use of VPP would increase the variety of food items and 
products that could be offered and would assist schools and sponsors in 
accommodating the vegetarian and ethnic preferences of the participants 
in our programs.

Is Crediting of VPP Consistent Among the Menu Planning Approaches?

    As a result of recent efforts to improve the meals offered to 
children, schools now have a variety of menu planning approaches from 
which to choose. However, the policies for crediting VPP are not 
consistent among the various menu planning approaches. Two such 
approaches allow food based menu planning and two others employ 
nutrient standard menu planning which are based on nutrient analysis of 
menus. Another option, proposed in a May 15, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR 
27162), would permit schools to develop their own ``reasonable 
approach'' to menu planning and will be available after publication of 
a final rule in 1999. However, the limitations and crediting policies 
for VPP only apply to the food-based menu planning approaches. Schools 
using one of the nutrient standard menu planning approaches do not have 
to apply the VPP provisions in the Alternate Foods for Meals 
provisions. This proposal will alleviate these inconsistencies among 
the various menu planning approaches.

Which Programs Would be Affected by the Proposed Changes?

    The current VPP provisions and the proposed changes apply to all CN 
Programs. However, their greatest impact is on the school meals 
programs which have the most participants. The SFSP and the CACFP would 
also benefit from the greater selection of menu items that would result 
from these proposed changes. However, we understand that these changes 
may present some new challenges to operators of these programs. 
Comments related specifically to how these two programs will adopt 
these proposed modifications are requested.

What are the Proposed Changes to Appendix A?

    We are proposing to:
    (1) change the name from vegetable protein products (VPP) to 
alternate protein products (APP) and remove the requirement that APP 
only be of plant origin;
    (2) remove the limitation of 30 percent (by weight) maximum 
substitution for meat, seafood, or poultry;
    (3) remove the fortification requirement; and
    (4) update the protein quality test to the Protein Digestibility 
Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) from the currently required Protein 
Efficiency Ratio (PER) test.

Why Change the Name From VPP to APP?

    We are proposing to remove the requirement that protein products 
used in our programs be derived only from plant protein sources. 
Instead of the term ``Vegetable Protein Products,'' we are proposing 
the term ``Alternate Protein Products'' to indicate that alternate 
protein products are no longer only vegetable-based. Under our 
proposal, APP may be derived from animal sources such as whey-based 
protein products. (Therefore, VPP will be referred to as APP for the 
remainder of the preamble.)

Why is FNS Proposing to Eliminate the Limit on the Amount of APP That 
may be Used?

    We are proposing to remove the requirement that APP be used only in 
combination with meat, poultry and seafood by eliminating the 
requirement that APP be no more than 30 percent (by weight) of the food 
item. The 30 percent limitation was based on the best data available at 
the time. That data indicated that alternate protein products appeared 
to inhibit the absorption of iron and other nutrients.
    Current expert opinion (Messina, Bothwell, Cook, et al.) is that 
moderate intakes of APP will not have a negative affect on the levels 
of iron and other nutrients in the body. We also believe that removing 
the limit on use of APP will not adversely affect a child's diet if 
menu planners follow the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines on 
moderation and on offering a variety of foods. If menus with APP, like 
any foods offered in our programs, are planned with the key elements of 
moderation and variety in mind, any risk to dietary status should be 
eliminated.

Why is FNS Proposing to Remove the Requirement for Fortification?

    We established the requirement that only fortified VPP be used as 
an additional safeguard to further assure that children received 
adequate nutrients. We now can remove this requirement as the 
additional fortification is unnecessary. In fact, scientific evidence 
indicates that unrestricted use of fortified APP could actually result 
in excessive intakes of iron and zinc.
    Eliminating the requirement on fortification would allow the food 
industry to directly market their existing products to schools and 
sponsors as they would no longer need to develop and maintain a special 
product exclusively for the CN Programs. This would reduce the burden 
on the food manufacturing industry. Schools and institutions would have 
a greater selection of products to incorporate into their menus to 
assist them with meeting our nutrition goals as well with cost 
effectiveness.

Why is FNS Proposing a Different Test for Protein Quality?

    Currently, a Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) is the only method for 
protein quality evaluation specified in our regulations. We permitted 
use of other tests on an exception basis only if the test provided 
similar information and results as the PER method. The PER method was, 
at the time of publication of current regulations, in agreement with 
FDA's prescribed method of determining protein quality. However, in 
1993, FDA revised its regulations to require use of the Protein 
Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) for all ages except 
for infants. For children under one, PER remains the best method.
    In addition to being more accurate, efficient, and less costly, 
PDCAAS has generally been recognized as the most appropriate for 
evaluating protein quality. In order to achieve consistency with FDA 
regulations and to reflect the latest scientific advances, we are 
proposing that PDCAAS be our standard method of determining protein 
quality for APP. Should FDA accept or require

[[Page 38841]]

another test in the future, we will update our regulations to reflect 
that change.
    As we noted, the PER test is still the preferred method for 
determining protein quality of APP for infants. We are not, however, 
requiring that the PER test be conducted as our infant meal pattern is 
based on specific foods, not the more general food components. 
Consequently, menu planners are unlikely to offer APP to infants.

Will Protein Quality be Compromised?

    In considering possible changes to current requirements, we were 
concerned about protein quality given the unrestricted levels of APP in 
food items. There is general scientific agreement that protein quality 
need not be a major concern, provided that fluid milk continues to be a 
part of the CN Programs. A study conducted by Reeds and Stuff in 1993 
compared meals with several combinations of meat and plant-based 
proteins. That study found both the protein and specific amino acid 
contribution of meatless lunches that included milk was adequate. Since 
fluid milk continues to be a requirement for all menu planning 
approaches, we do not believe that protein quality poses any 
significant problems.
    There is, however, a current proliferation of protein isolates 
being developed by the food industry, some of which may be very low in 
protein quality. Consequently, we intend to maintain a requirement that 
protein quality of an APP be determined through testing. Further, in 
order to maintain protein quality, we are not proposing to change the 
requirement for APP that the biological quality of the protein in the 
APP be at least 80 percent that of casein (milk protein). This is the 
established benchmark for a high quality protein product.
    In the interests of further maintaining protein quality, we are 
also retaining the requirement that the protein content of the fully 
hydrated APP be a minimum of 18 percent by weight. We also retained the 
requirement that the equivalent of 18 percent protein be provided for 
dry or partially hydrated forms. The 18 percent protein requirement, 
use of a more accurate test to determine the protein quality, and 
requiring a 80 percent PDCAAS score as compared to casein for an 
acceptable APP all combine to assure the quality of the food items 
offered to participating children.

How Will Schools and Institutions Know if the APP Meet the 
Requirements?

    We currently require that VPP be labeled in accordance with 
regulations published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These 
regulations have since been withdrawn, so we are removing any 
provisions related to the FDA regulations.
    In order to assure that APP used in our programs meet the protein 
quality standards, we are proposing that manufacturers document that 
their products meet the following requirements:
    1. the APP is processed so that some portion of the non-protein 
constituents of the food is removed;
    2. the biological quality of the protein in the alternate protein 
product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, determined by 
performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS); 
and
    3. the APP contains at least 18 percent protein by weight when 
fully hydrated or formulated.
    We are not specifying the form of documentation required. For 
example, the manufacturer could provide specification sheets, a letter 
attesting the requirements were met, or could put a label on the 
product. While we want to assure that the APP used in our programs meet 
our nutritional standards, we do not want to impose a burden on 
manufacturers to individually label their products unless they choose 
to do so.

What APP Will Be Used in the CN Programs?

    Currently, the most widely used type of APP used in our programs 
are soy-based. Because this proposed rule will increase the varieties 
of products that could be used, we are particularly interested in 
learning what sorts of APP are available and how they could be used in 
our programs as well as any future trends for APP. This information 
will assist us in developing any guidance that may be needed for 
schools and institutions on how APP can be used to meet all or part of 
the meat/meat alternate component of the food-based menu planning 
approaches.

What Technical Amendments Are Being Proposed?

    The flexibility provided to school food authorities participating 
in the NSLP under Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, Alternate 
Protein Products (formerly entitled ``Vegetable Protein Products'') (7 
CFR part 210, Appendix A) has always been extended to the School 
Breakfast Program. This rule proposes to formalize this flexibility by 
adding to 7 CFR Part 220, Appendix A, a new section entitled 
``Alternate Protein Products.''
    We are also using this opportunity to redraft the section on APP in 
Appendix A to each part in plain language as directed by the Vice 
President. Therefore, the paragraphs in each Appendix A on APP to each 
section are reorganized for clarity as well as amended to reflect the 
revisions discussed in this preamble. We would appreciate comments on 
the format and on other ways in which we can make this information more 
useful to those who apply these provisions.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be non-significant and is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866.

Public Law 104-4

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) generally prepares a written 
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final 
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a 
statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal 
governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through 
612). The Administrator of FNS has certified that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. First, there are relatively few companies

[[Page 38842]]

that supply alternate protein products to the Child Nutrition Programs. 
Secondly, removing the fortification requirement eliminates the burden 
on manufacturers to develop and market a product specially for use in 
the Child Nutrition Programs. Lastly, menu planners would have greater 
flexibility to incorporate alternate protein products into their menus 
along with the traditional protein sources of meat, poultry and 
seafood.

Executive Order 12372

    The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program 
are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 
10.555 and 10.553, respectively. The Child and Adult Care Food Program 
and the Summer Food Service Program are listed under Nos. 10.558 and 
No. 10.559, respectively. Each is subject to the provisions of 
Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation 
with State and local officials. (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final 
rule related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive 
effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies 
which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its 
full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have 
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Date section of 
this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of 
this proposed rule or the application of the provisions, all applicable 
administrative procedures must be exhausted. This includes any 
administrative procedures provided by State or local governments and, 
for disputes involving procurements by State agencies and sponsors, any 
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR Part 
3016.
    In the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, 
the administrative procedures are set forth under the following 
regulations: (1) school food authority appeals of State agency findings 
as a result of an administrative review must follow State agency 
hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 210.18(q); (2) 
school food authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of an 
administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established 
pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of 
State Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR Sec. 235.11(b)) must 
follow FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 
CFR Sec. 235.11(f).
    In the Summer Food Service Program, the administrative procedures 
are set forth under the following regulations: (1) program sponsors and 
food service management companies must follow State agency hearing 
procedures issued pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 225.13; and (2) disputes 
involving procurement by State agencies and sponsors must follow 
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR 
Sec. 225.17 and 7 CFR Part 3015.
    In the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the administrative 
procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1) 
institution appeal procedures in 7 CFR Sec. 226.6(k); and (2) disputes 
involving procurement by State agencies and institutions must follow 
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR 
Sec. 226.22 and 7 CFR 3015.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new paperwork burdens or information 
collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507).

References/Sources

    1. Vernon R. Young; ``Soy Protein in Relation to Human Protein 
and Amino Acid Nutrition''; Journal of the American Dietetic 
Association; 1991.
    2. Peter Reeds, Janice Stuff; ``Protein Quality and Amino Acid 
Requirements of Children''; USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research 
Center; 1993.
    3. Joanne Slavin; ``Nutritional Benefits of Soy Protein and Soy 
Fiber''; Journal of the American Dietetic Association; 1991.
    4. Mark Messina, Virginia Messina; SoyFacts, Soy Foods and Iron; 
Number 6.
    5. T. H. Bothwell, F. M. Clydesdale, J. D. Cook et al; Report of 
the International Nutritional Anemia Consultative Group (INACG); 
Nutrition Foundation, Washington, DC.
    6. J. D. Cook; ``Adaptation in Iron Metabolism''; American 
Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 1990.
1. The Soy Connection. Health and Nutrition News about Soy; Volume 1, 
Number 3; United Soybean Board, Chesterfield, MO, 63017.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 210

    Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs, 
Grants programs-social programs, National School Lunch Program, 
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus 
agricultural commodities.

7 CFR Part 220

    Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-social programs, 
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School Breakfast 
Program.

7 CFR Part 225

    Food and Nutrition, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-
health, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

7 CFR Part 226

    Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food and Nutrition Service, Food 
assistance programs, Grant programs, Grant programs--health, Indians, 
Individuals with disabilities, Infants and children, Intergovernmental 
relations, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surplus agricultural commodities.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 210, 220, 225 and 226 are proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 210.10, amend the first sentence of paragraph (k)(3)(i) 
by removing the words ``Vegetable protein products'' and adding the 
words ``Alternate protein products'' in their place.
    3. In Sec. 210.10a, amend the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(i) 
by removing the words ``Vegetable protein products'' and adding the 
words ``Alternate protein products'' in their place.
    4. In Appendix A to part 210, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals, 
revise the undesignated centerheading ``Enriched Macaroni Products with 
Fortified Protein'' to read ``I. Enriched Macaroni Products with 
Fortified Protein.''
    5. In Appendix A to part 210, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals, 
revise the section entitled ``Vegetable Protein Products'' to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Part 210--Alternate Foods for Meals

* * * * *

II. Alternate Protein Products

A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used 
in the National School Lunch Program?

    1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the 
food-based menu

[[Page 38843]]

planning approaches in Sec. 210.10(k) or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is 
applicable, must meet all of the criteria in this section.
    2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in 
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following 
criteria:
    a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some 
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed. 
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible 
products produced from plant or animal sources.
    b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate 
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, 
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino 
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
    c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18 
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When 
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product 
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other 
substances which have been added).
    d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to 
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation 
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a. through c 
above.
    e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent 
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as 
prepared basis.
    f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide 
information on:
    (1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the 
package;
    (2) hydration instructions; and
    (3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or 
seafood.

B. How are Alternate Protein Poducts Used in the National School 
Lunch Program?

    1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use 
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat 
alternate component discussed in Sec. 210.10 or Sec. 210.10a, 
whichever is applicable.
    2. The following terms and conditions apply:
    a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in 
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination 
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf, 
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
    b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form 
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The 
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if 
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture 
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent 
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level 
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).

C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the National 
School Lunch Program?

    Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a 
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with 
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product 
that contains only alternate protein products.

PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 220 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Appendix A to part 220, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals, 
revise the undesignated centerheading ``Formulated Grain-Fruit 
Products'' to read ``I. Formulated Grain-Fruit Products''.
    3. Add a new section to Appendix A of part 220 entitled, ``II. 
Alternate Protein Products'' following the table at the end of the 
Appendix to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 220--Alternate Foods for Meals

* * * * *

II. Alternate Protein Products

A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used 
in the National School Breakfast Program?

    1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the 
food-based menu planning approaches in Sec. 220.8(g) or Sec. 220.8a, 
whichever is applicable, must meet all of the criteria in this 
section.
    2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in 
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following 
criteria:
    a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some 
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed. 
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible 
products produced from plant or animal sources.
    b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate 
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, 
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino 
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
    c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18 
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When 
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product 
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other 
substances which have been added).
    d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to 
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation 
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
    e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent 
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as 
prepared basis.
    f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide 
information on:
    (1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the 
package;
    (2) hydration instructions; and
    (3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or 
seafood.

B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the National School 
Breakfast Program?

    1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use 
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat 
alternate component discussed in Sec. 220.8 or Sec. 220.8a, 
whichever is applicable. The following terms and conditions apply:
    a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in 
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination 
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf, 
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
    b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form 
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The 
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if 
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture 
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent 
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level 
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).

C. How are Commercially Prepared Products used in the National 
School Breakfast Program?

    Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a 
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with 
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product 
that contains only alternate protein products.
* * * * *

PART 225-SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 225 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).

    2. In 225.16, amend the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) by 
removing the words ``Textured vegetable'' and adding the word 
``alternate'' in their place.
    3. Revise Appendix A to Part 225, entitled Alternate Foods for 
Meals, to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 225--Alternate Foods for Meals

Alternate Protein Products

A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used 
in the Summer Food Service Program?

    1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the 
provisions in Sec. 225.16 must meet all of the criteria in this 
section.
    2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in 
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following 
criteria:
    a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some 
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed. 
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible 
products produced from plant or animal sources.

[[Page 38844]]

    b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate 
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, 
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino 
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
    c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18 
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When 
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product 
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other 
substances which have been added).
    d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to 
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation 
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
    e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent 
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as 
prepared basis.
    f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide 
information on:
    (1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the 
package;
    (2) hydration instructions; and
    (3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or 
seafood.

B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the Summer Food 
Service Program?

    1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use 
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat 
alternate component discussed in Sec. 225.20.
    2. The following terms and conditions apply:
    a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in 
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination 
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf, 
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
    b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form 
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The 
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if 
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture 
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent 
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level 
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).

C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the Summer Food 
Service Program?

    Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a 
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with 
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product 
that contains only alternate protein products.

PART 226--CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 225 continues to read:

    Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, National School Lunch 
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a, 1765, and 1766).

    2. Revise Appendix A to Part 226, entitled Alternate Foods for 
Meals, to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 226--Alternate Foods for Meals

Alternate Foods for Meals

A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used 
in the Child and Adult Care Food Program?

    1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the 
provisions in Sec. 226.20 must meet all of the criteria in this 
section.
    2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in 
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following 
criteria:
    a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some 
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed. 
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible 
products produced from plant or animal sources.
    b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate 
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, 
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino 
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
    c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18 
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When 
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product 
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other 
substances which have been added).
    d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to 
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation 
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
    e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent 
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as 
prepared basis.
    f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide 
information on:
    (1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the 
package;
    (2) hydration instructions; and
    (3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or 
seafood.

B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program?

    1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use 
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat 
alternate component discussed in Sec. 226.20.
    2. The following terms and conditions apply:
    a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in 
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination 
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf, 
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
    b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form 
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The 
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if 
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture 
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent 
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level 
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).

C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the Child and Adult 
Care Food Program?

    Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a 
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with 
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product that 
contains only alternate protein products.

    Dated: July 14, 1999.
Samuel Chambers, Jr.,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 99-18433 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P