Opinion ID: 195836
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Secretary Responded Adequately to Comments

Text: 32 Plaintiffs also argue that the Secretary failed adequately to respond to comments and criticisms when promulgating the regulation. Plaintiffs contend that, during the rulemaking process, the Secretary received numerous comments critical of the $1,500 limit. Some of these comments criticized the relevance and validity of the food stamp study. In response, the Secretary wrote: 33 We stand by our original position. The choice of $1,500 as the maximum equity value for an automobile was based on the data from a Spring 1979 survey of food stamp recipients. We regard the limit of $1,500 equity value in an automobile as reasonable and supportable. 34 47 Fed.Reg. at 5657. Plaintiffs argue that this was not a meaningful response to the comments, and that the regulation therefore violated the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c) (1988) 13 . 35 We do not agree. Only a dozen comments were submitted on the automobile resource exemption, of which ten took issue with the $1,500 amount. Each of these comments was fairly brief, criticizing the figure as generally too low. Only one of them suggested an alternative to the $1,500 figure. None of them suggested any alternative data upon which to base the figure. Given the nature of the comments, we do not find the Secretary's brief response so inadequate as to violate Sec. 553(c). Accord Champion, 33 F.3d at 966 n. 4; cf. Brewer, 945 F.2d at 457 n. 7. 36 We conclude, therefore, that the $1,500 automobile exemption was neither arbitrary nor capricious when promulgated.