Opinion ID: 449221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DOL Compliance with APA Procedural Requirements.

Text: 33 VAGA argues that issuance of the 50% rule was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law because of DOL's failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. VAGA recognizes the challenged rulemaking as informal notice-and-comment rulemaking governed by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553. It nevertheless insists that DOL fails to meet even the relatively limited requirements for such rulemaking. We are not persuaded by this argument. 34 Section 553(c) requires (1) that the agency give notice of the proposed rules and consider the relevant matter presented, and (2) that it incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. Here the agency considered the relevant matter presented by about 170 organizations and individuals during hearings held in six different locations. It also considered about 250 letters received before the hearings. Further, as the district court notes, the agency heard testimony on the precise problems VAGA complains of in this lawsuit--having to pay the H-2 workers 3/4 of the work contract whether or not they were needed and terminating them because of the need to hire the domestic crew.... 579 F.Supp. at 776. 35 Second, DOL has set forth a general statement of the basis and purpose for the rules governing employer certification. DOL states that the regulations shall be construed to effectuate the purpose of the INA that U.S. workers rather than aliens be employed wherever possible.... Where temporary alien workers are admitted, the terms and conditions of their employment must not result in a lowering of the terms and conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. 43 Fed.Reg. 10,312 (1978), 20 C.F.R. Sec. 655.0(e). 36 DOL has also specifically discussed its basis for the challenged regulation. Employers urged, DOL noted in issuing the 50% rule, that their responsibility in this regard should end at the time of certification. Worker representatives, on the other hand, urged that the responsibility should continue until the end of the harvest, as the earlier regulation had provided. DOL stated that it chose the 50% rule as a reasonable middle course between these competing interests. 43 Fed.Reg. 10,308 (1978). 37