[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. 
http://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