Administrative agency: Regulations
Monika Felton
Keller Graduate School of Management
Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions of Business
MGMT 520
Professor Melchiori
November 5, 2012

Administrative Agency: Regulations
The Administrative Agency
The Federal administrative agency for which the chosen regulation controls is the United States Department of Agriculture, (USDA). The agency under the USDA for which the departmental proposed regulation falls is the Food and Nutrition Service, (FNS); the FNS works to reduce hunger among low-income populations providing greater access to higher nutritional standards with the aid of the U.S. agriculture (www.USDA.gov). The proposal addresses the administrative aspect of local educational agencies, (LEA), on the school lunch program and how best to ensure accurate documentation and assessment of family eligibility. The proposal affects section 304 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296) (www.USDA.gov).
Why the Agency and Regulation is of Interest
The proposed regulation is of interest due to the fact that it will directly affect the lives of thousands of low income children for which my job concerns. As a child case manager, approval of “free” lunches for low income households is often that bridge provides a large portion of daily and weekly meals for many clients. The regulation states that incomplete applications will not be approved; let it be noted that many parents lack the necessary data required to complete the application for school lunch in a timely manner. Due to this fact the amendment of the regulation will leave several children hungry and without, for the majority, the only meal they might otherwise receive for that day. While the premise for the restructuring of the rule is understandable; money will be saved through the revisement. But at what cost will the proposed regulation be too many impoverished and low income children? How will schools cope with the children who fall through the holes created by this proposal?

The Proposed Regulation Change
The proposal would require the time-consuming evaluation the administrative process of each LEA in their ability to verify applications that are incomplete or at high risk for fraudulency (www.regulation.gov). It would require a two-step process in which applications are scrutinized for eligibility by local, State and Federal regulations as applicable. The new proposal also mandates that the LEA subsequently submit a report detailing the outcome of the reviewing process to the Secretary of the FNS (www.regulations.gov). The proposed regulation was found under the “agenda” section of the regulations.gov website; the RIN is, 0584-AE16, with a publication date of 10/2011.
Currently, I am a case manager for children whose families this proposal would affect. The neediest of families for which I serve are often unstabilized and concurrent document is often a working effort to obtain. The concern at hand is the length of time that would lapse between application receipt by the LEA and approval of assistance. What accommodations would schools have in place in interim, and where would monies be found to supplement breakfast and lunch for those who fall into the “gap”? Although this proposal may be a viable solution for administrative procedures, it has the potential to become formidable block for children who depend on LEA as a dependable, safe source of education and nutritious meals.
Comments
The public comment I would post finds similarity to the concerns previously posted by others. The deadline for comment submission is 13 November 2012 by 11:59 pm eastern standard time. My comment would briefly read: “Although the necessity of validating the applications for accurate eligibility is of necessary data collection, the risk of losing many students is too much of a risk to implementation of the plan without require of an emergency plan of action or supplemental plan to cover the “gap” and provide adequate coverage for the children whose needs are greater. I am in favor of the plan only if and when a written plan is draw by the LEA to implement the increase of students who will be captured as a result of this administrative amendment”.
The comment would be submitted in hope that it would cause the FNS to consider the outcome and total repercussions the submitted proposed regulation will have on their organizational objective.
After submission of the comment, legal entitlement during the promulgation process would be along the lines of the following rights: Notification of the charges, notification of hearing day, present supporting evidence, to be represented by an attorney if needed, to an impartial judge, to a decision based on the law or regulation, to cross-examine witnesses of the agency (Jennings, 2010).
If the proposal passes, there are five legal theories that could be used to have the proposal declared invalid or overturned.
1) Substantial evidence test - this is a review of the rulemaking process, whether hybrid or formal; it applies use of proof or viable base for the regulation with arbitrary and capricious substantial evidence requires that more convincing evidence exist in support of the regulation than against it (Jennings, 2010).
2) Second theory – “A regulation can be set aside if the agency did not comply with the APA requirements of notice, publication, and public comment or input. The procedures for rulemaking must be followed in order for the regulatory process and resulting rules to be valid. An agency that seeks public comment for the purposes of drafting regulations cannot then turn the proposed regulations into agency rules after the comment period. The promulgated rules must be the result of the proceedings the proposed regulations into agency rules after the comment period. The promulgated rules must be the result of the proceedings” (Jennings, 2010).
3) Unconstitutional - This theory makes the claim that the regulation are in some way unfound, nonconstitutional and discriminatory. An example would be a violation of freedom of speech (Jennings, 2010).
4) “Ultra Vires” – Means, that the agency enacted the rule exacting powers beyond its given powers of authority (Jennings, 2010).
5) Arbitrary and capricious – can the rule be found to be an abuse of discretion; can it be found to be in violation of another law? (Jennings, 2010)
Of the five, I would lend that the proposed rule is unconstitutional and discriminatory against children of low-income status and state that the proposed rule would be discriminatory.
In conclusion, rule-making is an arduous, yet necessary process. The proposed rule that was chosen as the subject of this paper has some pertinent reasons for its creation. Adminis-trative procedures must be maintained, but, if those procedures become in opposition to the population for which was to protect, then the rule itself can become a holding sentence for that vulnerable segment of society.

References
Jennings, Marianne M. (2010). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 9th ed Http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781133170624 www.regulations.gov (n.d.). Your Voice in Federal Decision-Making. http://www.regulations. gov/#!home;tab=search www.USDA.gov (n.d.). USDA: United States Department of Agriculture. Http://www.us- da.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGENCIES_OFFICES_C