Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United

146 Pages·2016·0.9 MB·English

Vol. 77 Tuesday,
No. 34 February 21, 2012
Part II
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Part 655
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 503
Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment of H–2B Aliens in the United
States; Final Rule
S
E
UL
R
with
D
O
R
P
N1
V
T
P
S
K5
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
10038 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Information Relay Service at 1–800– seeking to fill job opportunities through
877–8339. the H–2B program must demonstrate
Employment and Training SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: that it has a temporary need for the
Administration services or labor, as defined by one of
I. Revisions to 20 CFR part 655 Subpart
four regulatory standards: (1) A one-
20 CFR Part 655 A time occurrence; (2) a seasonal need; (3)
A. Statutory Standard and Current a peakload need; or (4) an intermittent
Wage and Hour Division Department of Labor Regulations need. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B).
Generally, that period of time will be
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the
29 CFR Part 503 limited to 1 year or less, except in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA
case of a one-time occurrence, which
RIN 1205–AB58 or the Act) defines an H–2B worker as
could last up to 3 years, consistent with
a nonimmigrant admitted to the U.S. on
the standard under DHS regulations at
Temporary Non-Agricultural a temporary basis to perform temporary
8 CFR 214.2(h)(6) as well as current
Employment of H–2B Aliens in the non-agricultural labor or services for
Department regulations at §655.6(b).
United States which ‘‘unemployed persons capable of
The 2008 Final Rule also employed an
performing such service or labor cannot
AGENCY: Employment and Training attestation-based filing model, in which
be found in this country.’’ 8 U.S.C.
Administration, and Wage and Hour the employer conducted its recruitment
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Section 214(c)(1) of
Division, Labor. with no direct Federal or State
the INA requires DHS to consult with
ACTION: Final rule. appropriate agencies before approving oversight. Lastly, the 2008 Final Rule
provided WHD’s enforcement authority
an H–2B visa petition. 8 U.S.C.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (the under which WHD could impose civil
1184(c)(1). The regulations of the U.S.
Department) is amending its regulations money penalties and other remedies.
governing the certification of the Citizenship and Immigration Services On August 30, 2010, the U.S. District
employment of nonimmigrant workers (USCIS), the agency within DHS which Court for the Eastern District of
in temporary or seasonal non- adjudicates requests for H–2B status, Pennsylvania in Comite´ de Apoyo a los
agricultural employment and the require that an intending employer first Trabajadores Agricolas (CATA) v. Solis,
enforcement of the obligations apply for a temporary labor certification Civil No. 2:09–cv–240–LP, 2010 WL
applicable to employers of such from the Secretary of Labor (the 3431761 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2010),
nonimmigrant workers. This Final Rule Secretary). That certification informs invalidated various provisions of the
revises the process by which employers USCIS that U.S. workers capable of 2008 Final Rule and remanded the rule
obtain a temporary labor certification performing the services or labor are not to the Department to correct its errors.
from the Department for use in available, and that the employment of In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
petitioning the Department of Homeland the foreign worker(s) will not adversely (NPRM) published March 18, 2011 (76
Security (DHS) to employ a affect the wages and working conditions FR 15130), we proposed to amend the
nonimmigrant worker in H–2B status. of similarly employed U.S. workers. particular provisions that were
8 CFR 214.2(h)(6). On Guam, H–2B invalidated by the Court, including
We have also created new regulations to
employment requires certification from specifying when H–2B employers must
provide for increased worker
the Governor of Guam, not the contact unions as a potential source of
protections for both United States (U.S.)
Secretary. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii). labor at §655.44 and providing a new
and foreign workers.
Our regulations, at 20 CFR part 655, definition of full-time and a slightly
DATES: This Final Rule is effective April Subpart A, ‘‘Labor Certification Process modified definition of job contractor in
23, 2012. for Temporary Employment in §655.5 and 29 CFR 503.4.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: For Occupations other than Agriculture or
further information on 20 CFR part 655, Registered Nursing in the United States B. The Need for Rulemaking
Subpart A, contact William L. Carlson, (H–2B Workers),’’ govern the H–2B The Department determined for a
Ph.D., Administrator, Office of Foreign labor certification process, as well as the variety of reasons that a new rulemaking
Labor Certification, ETA, U.S. enforcement process to ensure U.S. and effort is necessary for the H–2B
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution H–2B workers are employed in program. These policy-related reasons,
Avenue NW., Room C–4312, compliance with H–2B labor which were discussed at length in the
Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) certification requirements. Applications NPRM, include expansion of
693–3010 (this is not a toll-free for labor certification are processed by opportunities for U.S. workers, evidence
number). Individuals with hearing or the Office of Foreign Labor Certification of violations of program requirements,
speech impairments may access the (OFLC) in the Employment and Training some rising to a criminal level, need for
telephone number above via TTY by Administration (ETA), the agency to better worker protections, and a lack of
calling the toll-free Federal Information which the Secretary has delegated her understanding of program obligations.
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. responsibilities as described in the We accordingly proposed to revert to
For further information on 29 CFR USCIS H–2B regulations. Enforcement the compliance-based certification
part 503 contact Mary Ziegler, Director, of the attestations made by employers in model that had been used from the
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and the course of submission of H–2B inception of the program until the 2008
Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, applications for labor certification is Final Rule. We also proposed to add
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 conducted by the Wage and Hour new recruitment and other requirements
ES Constitution Avenue NW., Room S– Division (WHD) within the Department, to broaden the dissemination of job offer
RUL 3510, Washington, DC 20210; to which DHS on January 16, 2009 information, such as introducing the
with Telephone [phone] (this is not a delegated enforcement authority granted electronic job registry and requiring the
OD toll-free number). Individuals with to it by the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(B). job offer to remain open to U.S. workers
R
N1P hearing or speech impairments may Under the 2008 H–2B regulations for a longer period and closer to the date
TV access the telephone number above via published at 73 FR 29942, May 22, 2008 of need. We stated that these changes
P
K5S TTY by calling the toll-free Federal (the 2008 Final Rule), an employer were necessary to ensure that there was
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations 10039
an adequate test of the U.S. labor market who perform the same jobs at the same wages and working conditions of U.S.
to determine whether U.S. workers are place as the H–2B workers receive the workers.
available for the jobs. Further, we same wages and benefits as the H–2B Summing the present value of the
proposed additional worker protections, workers. We discussed how increased costs associated with this rulemaking in
such as increasing the number of hours worker protections were necessary to Years 1–10 results in total discounted
per week required for full-time ensure that the employment of H–2B costs over 10 years of $10.3 million to
employment and requiring that U.S. workers does not adversely affect the $12.8 million (with 7 percent and 3
workers in corresponding employment percent discounting, respectively).
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND TRANSFERS
[Millions of dollars]
Transfers and costs by year
(millions of dollars)
Cost component
Year 1 Year 2–10 Year 1–10
costs costs costs
Undiscounted:
Total Costs and Transfers—Low...................................................................................................... $96.34 $94.73 $948.91
Total Costs and Transfers—High ..................................................................................................... 131.38 129.76 1,299.26
Total Transfers—Low ....................................................................................................................... 93.37 93.37 933.71
Total Transfers—High ...................................................................................................................... 128.41 128.41 1,284.06
Total Costs to Employers ................................................................................................................. 2.83 1.31 14.64
Total Costs to Government .............................................................................................................. 0.14 0.05 0.56
Present Value—7% Real Interest Rate:
Total Costs & Transfers—Low ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... 623.22
Total Costs & Transfers—High ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... 853.20
Total Transfers—Low ....................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 612.89
Total Transfers—High ...................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 842.87
Total Costs ....................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 10.33
Present Value—3% Real Interest Rate:
Total Costs & Transfers—Low ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... 786.05
Total Costs & Transfers—High ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... 1,076.20
Total Transfers—Low ....................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 773.27
Total Transfers—High ...................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 1,063.42
Total Costs ....................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 12.78
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COST BY PROVISION
[Millions of dollars]
Provision costs by year
(in millions of dollars)
Cost component
Year 1 Year 2–10 Year 1–10
costs costs costs
Transfers:
Corresponding Workers’ Wages—Low ............................................................................................ $17.52 $17.52 $175.18
Corresponding Workers’ Wages—High ........................................................................................... 52.55 52.55 525.53
Transportation................................................................................................................................... 61.33 61.33 613.28
Subsistence ...................................................................................................................................... 2.81 2.81 28.09
Lodging ............................................................................................................................................. 1.58 1.58 15.83
Visa and Border Crossing Fees ....................................................................................................... 10.13 10.13 101.33
Total Transfers—Low ....................................................................................................................... 93.37 93.37 933.71
Total Transfers—High ...................................................................................................................... 128.41 128.41 1,284.06
Costs to Employers:
Read and Understand Rule.............................................................................................................. 1.20 0 1.20
Document Retention ......................................................................................................................... 0.32 0 0.32
Additional Recruiting......................................................................................................................... 1.04 1.04 10.36
Disclosure of Job Order ................................................................................................................... 0.26 0.26 2.63
Other Provisionsa ............................................................................................................................. 0.014 0.014 0.14
Total Costs to Employers .......................................................................................................... 2.83 1.31 14.65
Costs to Government:
S Electronic Job Registry..................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.05 0.56
E
UL Enhanced U.S. Worker Referral Period ........................................................................................... Not Not Not
R
D with Total First Year Costs to Government ...................................................................................... 0.14 0.05 0.56
O
R
N1P Total Costs & Transfers:
TV Total Costs & Transfers—Low ......................................................................................................... 96.34 94.73 948.91
P
S Total Costs & Transfers—High ........................................................................................................ 131.38 129.76 1,299.26
K5
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:00 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
10040 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COST BY PROVISION—Continued
[millions of dollars]
Provision costs by year
(in millions of dollars)
Cost component
Year 1 Year 2–10 Year 1–10
costs costs costs
Total Transfers—Low ....................................................................................................................... 93.37 93.37 933.71
Total Transfers—High ...................................................................................................................... 128.41 128.41 1,284.06
Total Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 2.97 1.36 15.20
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
aIncludes the sum of: Elimination of Attestation-Based Model; Post Job Opportunity; Workers Rights Poster.
C. Overview of the Comments Received 60-day comment period that we determined that an exemption for the
provided during this rulemaking is ski industry is not appropriate as the
We received 869 comments on the
consistent with the directive of commenters presented no valid
proposed rule. We have determined that
Executive Order 13563, see Improving argument as to why exemption is
457 were completely unique including 8
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 necessary. There is nothing about the
representative form letters, 4 were
FR 3821–22 (Jan. 21, 2011). Moreover, workers they seek to hire that prevents
duplicates, 407 were considered a form
in light of the Court’s ruling in the them from participating in the H–2B
letter or based on a form letter, and 1
CATA case invalidating some of the program. Ski resorts are fixed-site
comment was withdrawn at the request
current regulations, we believe it was locations that run on a seasonal basis
of the commenter. Those comments that
necessary to proceed as expeditiously as with standard operating procedures. We
were received by means not listed in the
reasonable through the rulemaking do not see a reason, nor was one
proposed rule or that we received after
process. presented, that prevents a ski resort
the comment period closed were not
considered in this Final Rule. There were several issues which we from meeting all the recruitment
Commenters represented a broad deemed to be beyond the scope of the requirements.
range of constituencies for the H–2B proposed rule. Some of these issues D. Elimination of the Attestation-Based
program, including small business included general disapproval of any Model
employers, U.S. and H–2B workers, foreigners being allowed to work in the
worker advocacy groups, State U.S., elimination of temporary foreign One of the overarching changes we
Workforce Agencies (SWAs), agents, law worker programs, activities and rules made in the proposed rule was the
firms, employer and industry advocacy related to the H–2A program, and elimination of the attestation-based
groups, union organizations, members general foreign relations and model adopted in the 2008 Final Rule.
of the U.S. Congress, and various immigration reform issues (including We received comments supporting the
interested members of the public. We increasing or decreasing the number of elimination of the attestation-based
received comments both in support of available visas). Also beyond the scope model as well as opposing that change.
and in opposition to the proposed of this rulemaking were the collective Generally, commenters who supported
regulation, which are discussed in bargaining rights of H–2B workers, the our decision to revert to a compliance-
greater detail below. wage methodology promulgated by the based model focused on the
One commenter contended that we Wage Methodology for the Temporary Department’s desire to reduce the
dismiss comments simply because they Non-agricultural Employment H–2B susceptibility of the H–2B program to
are similar in nature. This statement is Program, 76 FR 3452, Jan. 19, 2011 and fraud and abuse. Several commenters
incorrect. We read and analyzed all the portability of visas. expressed concern about the rise of
comments that we received within the Lastly, we received a large number of criminal and civil prosecutions which
comment period. For purposes of comments from the ski industry they felt demonstrate abuse in the H–2
posting comments for the public to requesting an exemption from the program. Most of the commenters cited
view, we posted all comments we regulations. Many of the commenters our audit experience, as discussed in
deemed unique with at least one copy believed that because ski instructors the NPRM, and agreed that this data
of a form letter so that there is an require skills or experience, under the alone should foreclose any debate on
opportunity to see the concerns being new rules they would be ineligible for the necessity of ending the attestation-
addressed. All form letters are the H–2B program. Generally, job based model. One commenter
considered in the final count of positions certified under the H–2B specifically pointed out that changes in
comments received and we address program are low skilled, requiring little the 2008 Final Rule made it easier for
them as required by the Administrative to no experience. We do recognize, unscrupulous employers and their
Procedure Act (APA) in this Final Rule. however, that there are some agents to use H–2B visas for the illicit
Another commenter argued that we did occupations and categories under the purpose of suppressing wages. This
not allow enough time to comment on H–2B program that may require same commenter suggested that a return
the proposed rulemaking. We disagree experience and/or training. Employer to a compliance-based model brings us
S and believe that 60 days was enough applicants demonstrating a true need for back to the proper focus of
E
UL time for the public to comment on the a level of experience, training or administering the H–2B program in a
R
with rulemaking. We note that the APA does certification in their application have manner that fairly balances the
OD not provide a specific time period never been prohibited in the H–2B protection of workers with the desires of
R
N1P during which agencies must accept program, given the breadth of the employers. Another commenter pointed
TV public comments in response to definition of H–2B under the INA. See out that the OFLC’s experience of 2
P
K5S proposed rules, see 5 U.S.C. 553, but the 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). We have years under the attestation-based model
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations 10041
is sufficient to demonstrate that the there a probability that the employer’s attestation-based program model, we are
model cannot be retained without doing non-compliance will be discovered or not aware of the non-compliance before
serious damage to the employment that the foreign worker(s) will report a certification.
prospects and wages and working violation. Only if an employer is Furthermore, despite the fact that
conditions of U.S. workers. Similarly, audited or investigated will we learn of H–2B cases continue to be processed
an advocacy group stated that many any non-compliance, even minor under the 2008 Final Rule, which some
aspects of the attestation-based model violations of program obligations, since commenters said implemented an ideal
deprive domestic workers of the attestation-based model relies on the balance between the attestation-based
employment opportunities, adversely employer’s attestations. model and stronger enforcement
affect their wages and working Consistent with our concerns about authority, we still see evidence in the
conditions, and encourage, rather than the attestation-based model, the H–2B program of a rising number of
curb, the well-documented fraud in the Department’s Office of Inspector criminal violations. In addition to the
H–2B program. General (OIG) issued an audit report on specific cases cited in the NPRM, there
Generally, commenters who October 17, 2011 in which OIG has been more recent evidence of
advocated the retention of an identified the attestation-based model as employers and agents filing fraudulent
attestation-based model encouraged us a weakness in the H–2B program1. OIG applications involving thousands of
to use our current resources and found that the existing attestation-based requested employees for non-existent
enforcement authority to crack down on application process did not allow for job opportunities. For example,
bad actors, rather than overhaul the meaningful validation before according to the OIG’s ‘‘Semiannual
program. A few commenters stated that application approval and hampered the Report to Congress’’ (October 2010 until
we did not give the 2008 Final Rule and Department’s ability to provide March 2011),2OIG investigations found
the attestation-based model sufficient adequate protections for U.S. workers in that emerging organized criminal groups
time to be successful. Contrary to the the H–2B applications OIG reviewed. are using the Department’s foreign labor
comments supportive of a change, these OIG noted that the Department’s certification processes in illegal
commenters argued that our audit of a proposed transition to a model requiring schemes, and in so doing are
random sample of cases is misleading pre-approval review of compliance committing crimes that negatively
given that the NPRM does not disclose through documentation, as adopted in impact workers. The report further lists
the number of cases audited and the this Final Rule, would strengthen the at least 4 examples of fraud committed
details about the audit process and that program. by employers or their attorneys/agents
all violations appear to be counted with As to commenter concerns about the in the H–2B program.
equal weight. Another commenter audit sample discussed in the NPRM, Lastly, while some commenters were
believed that reverting to the we reiterate that we conducted two concerned about the processing delays
compliance-based model would create rounds of audits of a random sample of that may result from reverting to a
extensive processing delays. cases, both of which resulted in an compliance-based certification model,
We disagree with the commenters indication that many of the employers our focus in administering the H–2B
who asserted that increased were not in compliance with the program is to provide employers with a
enforcement authority is the answer to attestations they agreed to. These audits viable workforce while protecting U.S.
resolving concerns about the attestation- we reviewed were a random sample. and foreign workers. We will, however,
based model. Our enforcement authority Employers were not selected based on continue to endeavor to process
is a separate regulatory component, specific industries or occupations, nor applications as efficiently and quickly
regardless of the certification model we were they selected based on compliance as possible and in accordance with the
use. Our experience, as presented in the with specific provisions. The indication timeframes set forth in the application
NPRM, indicates that despite the fact of employer non-compliance from those processing provisions of this Final Rule.
that the 2008 Final Rule contained audits is not acceptable by our In the NPRM, we solicited comments
elevated penalties for non-compliance standards. Additionally, contrary to the on maintaining the 2008 Final Rule or
with the program provisions, the results commenter’s claim that all violations some modification of the attestation-
of the audited cases demonstrate that an were given equal weight, regardless of based program design. While we have
attestation-based process does not the type of violations or their chosen to adopt the certification-based
provide an adequate level of protection consequences, our concern is that these model described in the NPRM, we
for either U.S. or foreign workers. audits evidenced a pattern of non- discuss below the responses to the
Commenters who assert we did not compliance with program obligations specific questions presented in the
give the 2008 Final Rule and its toward workers, regardless of the degree NPRM:
attestation-based model a chance to be of such non-compliance. Moreover, the
1. What kind of specific guidance could
successful undervalue the experience results of these audits showed the
the Department provide that would
we have had over the last 2 years with existence of deficiencies in the benefit a first-time (or sporadic)
the program. In making our decision to applications that would have warranted employer in the H–2B program to avoid
depart from the attestation-based model, further action, the least of which would mistakes in making attestations of
we took into account not only the audits have included issuing a Notice of compliance with program obligations?
we conducted as described in the Deficiency, and affording the employer
NPRM, but also the various comments the opportunity to correct the We received several comments
and concerns raised by employers, deficiencies, before adjudicating the directly addressing this question, one of
advocates, and workers about application. Again, under the which asserted that the attestation-based
S compliance with the program. The model was straightforward and that
E
UL attestation-based model of the 2008 non-compliance is attributable to a
R 1Program Design Issues Hampered ETA’s Ability
with Final Rule is highly vulnerable to fraud. to Ensure the H–2B Visa Program Provided
OD Under that model, only after an Adequate Protections for U.S. Forestry Workers in 2Semiannual Report to Congress, Office of the
N1PR employer has been certified and the ODerepgaortnm, Oenffti ocef Loaf bthoer, IRnesppoecrtt oNr oG. e1n7e–r1a2l –o0f 0t1h–e0 U3.–S . IVnoslpuemcteo 6r 5G (eOncetroabl eorf 1th, e2 0U1.0S .t oD eMpaarrctmh e3n1t, o2f0 1L1a)b;o r,
PTV foreign workers have come to the U.S. 321, Oct. 17, 2011. http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/ http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/semiannuals/65.pdf
K5S and begun working for the employer, is reports/oa/2012/17–12–001–03–321.pdf. http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/semiannuals/65.pdf.
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
10042 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations
willful choice made by the employer or established an email box to which to comply based on audits after an
its attorney/agent. Another comment, employers can submit questions about attestation has been made. Lastly, one
submitted by several employer advocacy the status of their applications; we commenter claimed that asking a
groups, encouraged us to establish believe this will be more accurate than hypothetical question about possible
additional ongoing education programs a telephone line for receiving changes in the program structure, such
throughout the U.S. and to provide a information and questions that can then as pre-certification audits, without
hotline to answer questions about basic be translated into public guidance as actually proposing language or
programmatic issues. The comment appropriate. We rely on such emailed procedures does not qualify as
suggested the hotline be supplemented questions and information to identify appropriate notice and would require us
by the Certifying Officer (CO) notifying recurring issues for which we may need to issue a new NPRM.
employers of any technical issues while to publish an FAQ and/or guidance. We As discussed above, we sought
the Application for Temporary also draft FAQs and other guidance comments about possible alternatives
Employment Certification is pending. documentation at the recommendation related to retaining the attestation-based
An employer also expressed frustration of the COs, based on recurring trends certification model. Based on the
with its inability to communicate and/or issues identified by them. In an comments on the retention of the
directly with us to seek immediate effort to better provide information to attestation-based certification model
guidance on program processes and the employer community, we will and pre-certification audits, we have
policies. consider publishing guidance decided not to retain the attestation-
While we have established an email responsive to specific issues, such as a based model. Therefore, we no longer
box ([email protected]) to which way to avoid common filing mistakes, consider the pre-certification audit
employers can submit questions about once those have been determined under process alternative, which was tied to
their applications, we continue to rely the re-engineered model. Lastly, we also the concept of the attestation-based
on those questions to easily identify plan to implement rollout activities and model, to be an option.
recurring issues for which we may need briefings to help familiarize program
4. What additional sanctions could be
to issue a Frequently Asked Question users and others with the regulatory
taken against employers to ensure
(FAQ) and/or guidance or provide requirements and changes in the H–2B
compliance with program requirements,
additional training to staff. We also program. Where we determine that more
given the potential for fraud in the
anticipate stakeholder educational guidance is needed, we will provide
H–2B program?
efforts to help familiarize program users additional educational outreach to the
and others with the regulatory filing community and other interested We received several comments on
requirements and changes in the H–2B parties. sanctions. We discuss issues involving
program. Where feasible and necessary, sanctions in the preamble discussions of
we will provide additional educational 3. Could pre-certification audits 29 CFR part 503 and §§655.72 and
outreach through briefings and other augment a post-certification audit in an 655.73.
attestation-based program model? If not,
types of guidance documents for the
how would you propose the Department 5. What other kinds of actions could the
benefit of all employers.
obtain information in the absence of Department take to prevent an H–2B
2. What kind of guidance would benefit supervised activity in order to arrive at employer from filing attestations that do
frequent users of the program with certification while ensuring compliance not meet program requirements?
respect to repetitive errors in with program obligations? We did not receive specific
recruitment? What kind of guidance Several commenters stated that they alternatives in answer to this question.
would be beneficial in avoiding errors would be supportive of more post- Any other incidental alternatives
in unique situations for these users? certification audits as long as we retain received that relate to specific sections
One commenter suggested that we the attestation-based certification of the Final Rule have been discussed
implement a three-strike policy to model. In asking this question, we were under the appropriate related
eliminate willful violators from the trying to gauge whether a pre- provisions.
H–2B program. Another commenter, certification audit process would be a For the reasons discussed above, we
including several employer advocacy viable way to alleviate the obvious are reverting to a compliance-based
groups, encouraged us to establish compliance problems that occur under model under the H–2B program as
additional ongoing education programs the attestation-based certification proposed.
throughout the U.S. and suggested that model. One commenter believed that by II. Discussion of Comments Received
employers document their attendance, adding a pre-certification audit process,
which we should consider in mitigation we would only be contributing to the A. Introductory Sections
of employer error in the application existing burden on the H–2B worker to We address below those areas in
process. The commenter also report non-compliance without actually which we received comments. For
recommended that we provide a hotline removing those employer applicants specific provisions on which we did not
to answer questions about basic that continue to do poorly. Another receive comments, we have retained the
programmatic issues and publish at commenter stated that a pre-certification provisions as proposed, except where
appropriate intervals a top 10 errors and audit process would imply that a review clarifying edits have been made.
issues list and a public notice on the of the documentation will ensure
1. §655.1 Scope and Purpose of
OFLC’s Web site indicating where the compliance with program requirements.
Subpart A
CO identifies a trend. This same commenter believed that a
S We believe that debarment and other pre-certification review cannot ensure The proposed provision informs
E
UL program integrity measures are that proper wages will be paid or that program users of the statutory basis and
R
with sufficient to eliminate willful violators U.S. referrals will be properly regulatory authority for the H–2B labor
OD from the H–2B program, and therefore, considered for a job. The commenter certification process. This provision also
R
N1P do not consider a three strike policy to also affirmed that the current describes our role in receiving,
TV be necessary. As to the request for a enforcement scheme provides reviewing, adjudicating, and preserving
P
K5S hotline, as stated above, we have significant incentive for program users the integrity of an Application for
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations 10043
Temporary Employment Certification. provisions of this Final Rule is E. Coast Ry., 410 U.S. 224, 245–46
We are adopting the provision as addressed in the discussions of the (1973), which renders DOL’s use of
proposed. We received several general sections containing those provisions. legislative rulemaking more appropriate
comments relating to this section. One Under the INA, Congress did not in the administration of the H–2B
commenter stated that the scope and specifically address the issue of the program than case-by-case adjudication,
purpose was to pay the highest of all the Department’s authority to engage in see Ford Motor Co. v. FTC, 673 F.2d
prevailing wages and to make sure that legislative rulemaking in the H–2B 1008, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 1982). Given the
H–2B workers are offered the same program but the legislative history of the type of global considerations
protections under the law as any other Immigration Reform and Control Act confronting DOL in administering the
worker. Another commenter stated that (IRCA) specifically acknowledges the program, it would defeat Congress’s
the original scope and purpose was to Department’s practice of issuing goals to conclude that DOL is only
find temporary workers or certify legislative rules, see H.R. Rep. No. 99–
authorized to engage in case-by-case
applications for foreign workers. These 682, pt. 1, at 79–80, 1986 WL 31950, at
adjudication. See USV Pharm. Corp. v.
comments misunderstand our **34. Since 1968, DOL has had
Weinberger, 412 U.S. 655, 665 (1973).
responsibility and the criteria that must regulations governing the H–2 non-
DOL’s use of legislative rulemaking also
be met before we certify an H–2B agricultural program, see 33 FR at 7570–
comports with the judicial preference
Application for Temporary Employment 71, and in enacting IRCA in 1986,
for filling in the interstices of the law
Certification. Under DHS’ regulations at Congress acknowledged DOL’s
through a quasi-legislative enactment of
8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv), the purpose of rulemaking without withdrawing its
rules of general applicability. See SEC v.
these regulations is for the Secretary of authority to issue legislative rules, see
Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202 (1947).
Labor to determine that: (1) There are H.R. Rep. No. 99–682, pt. 1, at 80.
Courts encourage agencies to adopt
not sufficient U.S. workers who are Ordinarily, when Congress adopts a new
qualified and who will be available to law incorporating sections of a prior law legislative rules when seeking to
perform the temporary services or labor it is presumed to be aware of existing establish norms of widespread
for which an employer desires to import administrative regulations interpreting application. See Ford Motor Co., 673
foreign workers; and (2) the the prior law. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 F.2d at 1009. Notice and comment
employment of the H–2B worker(s) will U.S. 575, 580–81 (1978). Moreover, rulemaking provides important
not adversely affect the wages and when Congress re-enacts a statutory procedural protections to the public,
working conditions of U.S. workers provision, an agency’s prior long- allows agencies to apprise themselves of
similarly employed. It is through the standing administrative practice under relevant issues and views, and promotes
regulatory provisions set forth below that statutory provision is deemed to predictability. See Int’l Union v. MSHA,
that the Department ensures that that have received congressional approval. 626 F.3d 84, 95 (DC Cir. 2010). Without
the criteria for its labor certification Fribourg Nav. Co. v. CIR, 383 U.S. 272, the use of this process, the public would
determinations are met. 283 (1966). In this case, Congress did be deprived of important protections
more than re-enact the H–2 non- that are unavailable in case-by-case
2. §655.2 Authority of Agencies,
agricultural statutory provision, it adjudication. Nat’l Petroleum Ref. Ass’n
Offices and Divisions in the Department
expressly acknowledged DOL’s rules v. FTC, 482 F.2d 672, 683–84 (1973).
of Labor
governing the H–2 program. See H.R.
Importantly, the CATA decision
This section describes the authority Rep. No. 99–682, pt. 1, at 80. Thus,
recently held that the Department is not
and division of activities related to the Congress approved of DOL’s rulemaking
permitted to adopt an H–2B prevailing
H–2B program among the Department’s authority in the H–2B program, and saw
wage regime without engaging in
agencies. The NPRM discussed the fit not to alter or further define DOL’s
legislative rulemaking. See CATA I,
authority of OFLC, the office within practices, unlike the H–2A agricultural
2010 WL 3431761, at *19 (E.D. Pa.
ETA that exercises the Secretary’s program. Id.
Aug.30,2010). That decision specifically
responsibility for determining the Even if the legislative history does not
invalidated the Department’s attempt to
availability of U.S. workers and whether resolve the issue of DOL’s rulemaking
use guidance documents to announce
the employment of H–2B nonimmigrant authority, when the statute does not
the applicable prevailing wage
workers will adversely affect the wages delegate rulemaking authority
methodology for H–2B employers,
and working conditions of similarly explicitly, such statutory ambiguities
holding that doing so deprives the
employed workers. It also discussed the are implicit delegations to the agency
public of the opportunity to comment
authority of WHD, the agency administering the statute to interpret the
on important issues for the
responsible for investigation and statute through its rulemaking authority.
enforcement of the terms and conditions Arnett v. CIR, 473 F.3d 790, 792 (7th administration of the H–2B program. Id.
of H–2B labor certifications, as Cir. 2007).3Congress expected DOL to Given the CATA decision’s holding that
delegated by DHS. We are retaining this ensure that employers using the H–2B the Department cannot use guidance
provision as proposed. program would not adversely affect documents to establish prevailing wage
We received several comments from similarly situated United States rates, without any legislative
employer advocacy organizations on our workers. See 8 U.S.C. rulemaking authority, the Department
authority to administer the H–2B labor 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); H.R. Rep. No. 99– would lack the authority to administer
certification program. These 682, pt. 1, at 80. This involves policy- the H–2B program in a fair and
commenters alleged that Congress has type determinations beyond disputed predictable manner. Lastly, given
not vested authority in the Department facts in a particular case, see U.S. v. Fla. Congress’ delegation of enforcement
S and that the statutory provision authority under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(B)
E
UL mandating consultation with other to USCIS and the Department, it would
R 3In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has
with agencies does not necessarily give us the affirmed this approach by applying Chevron be irrational to assume that Congress
OD right to effectuate the requirements deference to an agency’s construction of a didn’t intend for the Department to
N1PR proposed under these regulations. We jCuoreisudri Actliaosnkaal pv.r oSvoiusitohnea isnt iAtsl aosrkgaa nCiocn ssteartuv.t eC. oSuenec il, issue rules to define the terms of the
PTV address this general assertion below; 129 S. Ct. 2458, 2469 (2009); United States v. H–2B program in the absence of
K5S however, our authority for specific Eurodif, 129 S. Ct. 878, 888 (2009). statutory standards. Cf. Nat’l Ass’n of
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
10044 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations
Home Bds. v. OSHA, 602 F.3d 464, 467 responsibilities. We are retaining the procedures for requesting a waiver, see
(DC Cir. 2010). proposed section with one minor FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S.
clarification reminding the employer 582, 601 (1981), the Department is
3. §655.3 Territory of Guam
that it must request special procedures. committed to ensuring that the views of
As in the 2008 Final Rule, under the We also proposed that special affected employers and worker
proposed rule, the granting of H–2B procedures already in place on the representatives are considered. The
labor certifications and the enforcement effective date of the regulations will process under which a special
of the H–2B visa program on Guam remain in force until we otherwise procedure is considered is in most cases
continue to reside with the Governor of modify or withdraw them. A couple of initiated by an industry or group of
Guam, under DHS regulations. commenters objected to the continuance employers presenting us evidence that
However, the NPRM proposed that we of current special procedures because demonstrates their occupations are
would determine all H–2B prevailing they had not participated in the process. unique and that application of certain
wages, including those for Guam. We see no need to upset the settled provisions in the regulations cannot be
Recently, DHS, which consults with the expectations of the employers who have reconciled with the operational norms
Governor of Guam about the admission relied upon the special procedures for of the industry. Before effectuating such
of H–2B construction workers on Guam, many years at least to the extent they do procedures, we will consult with other
has determined that prevailing wages not conflict with these regulations. To employer and worker representatives as
for construction workers on Guam will the extent that the current special well as agencies within and outside the
be determined by the Secretary. 8 CFR procedures are in conflict with these Department, as appropriate, to identify
214.2(h)(6)(v)(E)(v). DHS and the regulations, the regulations will take necessary revisions which will, at the
Department agree that it is more precedence. An example of a possible same time, keep the integrity and
appropriate for OFLC to issue H–2B conflict would be the current special principal concepts of the program
prevailing wages for all workers, procedure provision which allows pre- intact. We also will continue to look to
including construction workers on certification to Canadian musicians who our program experts in OFLC and WHD
Guam, because OFLC already provides enter the U.S. to perform within a 50- and review industry data gathered from
prevailing wage determinations (PWDs) mile area adjacent to the Canadian employers that have previously used the
for all other U.S. jurisdictions. We border for a period of 30 days or less. H–2B program. Additionally, while
therefore proposed that the process for TEGL 31–05 Procedures for Temporary special procedures allow for necessary
obtaining a prevailing wage in §655.10 Labor Certification in the Entertainment and specific variations to regulations,
also would apply to H–2B job Industry under the H–2B Visa program, we expect employers to adhere to all
opportunities on Guam. Employment May 31, 2006, available at http:// other aspects of the regulations not
opportunities on Guam accordingly wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/ addressed in the special procedures.
would be subject to the same process TEGL 31–05.pdf. Since the Final Rule The application of a special procedure
and methodology for calculating does not provide for pre-certification for by an employer or an industry in no
prevailing wages as any other any occupations, such exemption would way relieves an employer from its
jurisdiction within OFLC’s purview. We no longer be allowed. obligation to obtain an approved
received no comments on this section A few commenters requested that we temporary labor certification from the
and therefore are retaining the provision revise the proposed language under this Department before submitting a request
as proposed. section from ‘‘the Administrator, OFLC for workers to USCIS.
may consult with affected employers
4. §655.4 Special Procedures 5. §655.5 Definition of Terms
and worker representatives’’ to ‘‘the
The proposed rule maintained our Administrator, OFLC must consult with a. Area of substantial unemployment.
authority to establish, continue, revise, affected employers and worker We proposed to add a definition of area
or revoke special procedures that representatives.’’ In addition, some of substantial unemployment to the H–
establish variations for processing commenters, including labor 2B program. The proposed definition
certain H–2B Applications for organizations and employees in the reflected the established definition of
Temporary Employment Certification. reforestation industry, recommended area of substantial unemployment in use
These are situations where we recognize that we should present special within ETA as it relates to Workforce
that variations from the normal H–2B procedures through a notice and Investment Act (WIA) fund allocations.
labor certification processes are comment period similar to an NPRM. We have retained the proposed
necessary to permit the temporary Finally, a couple of commenters felt that definition of area of substantial
employment of foreign workers in the special procedures process violates unemployment without change.
specific industries or occupations when the APA. Some commenters suggested
U.S. workers are not available and the We decline to make the changes alternative methods of defining an area
employment of foreign workers will not proposed by the commenters. We have of substantial unemployment. Several
adversely affect the wages or working complied with the procedural commenters contended that a different
conditions of similarly employed U.S. requirements of the APA by proposing threshold percentage than 6.5 percent
workers. These variations permit those this provision and soliciting public (e.g., 8 percent or 9 percent, the current
who would otherwise be unable to comments. See 5 U.S.C. 553. The national unemployment rate) or a
readily comply with the program’s purpose of the special procedures is to different time period than 12 months
established processes to participate, allow a particular group of employers (e.g., 3 months or the period of need
such as by allowing itinerary with a need for H–2B workers to requested) should be used to identify an
S employment for reforestation employers participate in the program by waiving area of substantial unemployment. One
E
UL and certain employers in the certain regulatory provisions when the labor organization proposed more than
R
with entertainment industry. These special provisions cannot be reconciled with a definitional alternative, suggesting
OD procedures permit us to accommodate the operational norms of the industry that employers in areas with 5 percent
R
N1P the unique circumstances of certain and when the employers comply with or higher unemployment should be
TV classes of employers without industry-specific alternative procedures. subject to an automatic legal
P
K5S undermining our essential Although we are not required to provide presumption that there is no labor
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations 10045
shortage sufficient to support an H–2B workers engaged in corresponding workers (part-time or full-time workers)
application and that those employers’ employment at least the same corresponding employment protections
applications should be given a strict, protections and benefits as those outside of the period of the job order. If,
high level review, including review by provided to H–2B workers (except for for example, a U.S. worker works year-
a senior official in Washington, DC. border crossing and visa fees which round and is in corresponding
The definition proposed in the NPRM would not be applicable). The NPRM employment with the H–2B workers
and retained in the Final Rule is the defined corresponding employment as during the period of the job order, the
existing definition of area of substantial the employment of workers who are not employer must provide corresponding
unemployment within ETA. ETA uses H–2B workers by an employer that has employment protections during the time
this definition to identify areas with an accepted H–2B application in any period of the job order but may choose
concentrated unemployment and focus work included in the job order (i.e., the not to do so during the time period
WIA funding for services to facilitate certified job duties in places of outside of the job order.
employment in those areas. We employment or worksite locations
There were many comments related to
proposed using this existing definition, specified by the employer) or in any
the proposed protections for workers in
and have chosen to retain it in the Final work performed by the H–2B workers
corresponding employment. Employee
Rule, both as a way to improve labor during the period of the job order
advocates, unions, and a member of
market test quality and for the sake of (anywhere the H–2B employer places
Congress strongly endorsed the
operational simplicity. This existing H–2B workers outside the scope of the
proposed provision, stating that it was
definition provides the appropriate labor certification), including any
essential to ensuring that the
standard for identifying areas of approved extension.
employment of H–2B workers does not
concentrated unemployment where For the reasons discussed below, the
adversely affect the wages, benefits, and
additional recruitment could result in Final Rule modifies the corresponding
working conditions of similarly
U.S. worker employment. Also, the employment definition by deleting the
employed domestic workers. They
process of collecting data and word ‘‘any’’ from before the word
emphasized that it is important for
designating an area of substantial ‘‘work’’ in two places and inserting the
corresponding workers to receive not
unemployment using the existing words ‘‘doing substantially the same’’
just the prevailing wage, but all the
definition is already established, as instead. The preamble also clarifies and
other assurances and benefits offered to
discussed in ETA’s Training and provides examples of what is and is not
H–2B workers, such as transportation,
Employment Guidance Letter No. 5–11, covered. The Final Rule also excludes
the three-fourths guarantee, and full-
Aug. 12, 2011,4providing OFLC with a from the definition of corresponding
time employment, in order to place U.S.
ready resource for identifying areas to employment two categories of
workers on at least the same footing as
focus additional recruitment. Finally, incumbent employees: (1) Those
foreign workers. These commenters
using this definition of area of employees who have been continuously
noted that the principle that there
substantial unemployment in the Final employed by the H–2B employer in the
should be no preference for foreign
Rule enables an employer to check the relevant occupation for at least the prior
workers is fundamental to the INA, and
list of areas of substantial 52 weeks, who have worked or been
that a corresponding employment
unemployment ETA publishes to paid for at least 35 hours in at least 48
requirement prohibits employer
determine whether its job opportunity of the prior 52 workweeks, and have
practices that would hurt the
may fall within an area of substantial averaged at least 35 hours of work or
employment prospects of U.S. workers.
unemployment and, as appropriate, be pay over the prior 52 workweeks, and
They also emphasized that the proposed
subject to enhanced recruitment. whose terms and conditions of
Adopting a legal presumption of the employment are not substantially rule’s assurance of equal protection was
availability of domestic workers in areas reduced during the period of the job a significant improvement for domestic
with 5 percent or higher unemployment order. In determining whether the workers who have, in the past, been
would significantly impact employers’ standard is met, the employer may take bypassed in favor of foreign workers.
access to the H–2B program and could credit for any hours that were reduced Thus, they stated that this protection is
not be viewed as a logical outgrowth of because the employee voluntarily chose necessary to provide a meaningful test
the proposal. Furthermore, while we not to work due to personal reasons of whether there are U.S. workers
appreciate the commenter’s concern, we such as illness or vacation; and (2) those available for employment. The
disagree with the approach suggested. employees who are covered by a employee advocates also stated that the
We thoroughly review all applications collective bargaining agreement or proposed definition’s broadening of the
submitted for all areas of intended individual employment contract that requirement to protect incumbent
employment. We consider enhanced guarantees an offer of at least 35 hours employees, rather than just those newly
recruitment requirements, as proposed of work each week and continued hired in response to the H–2B
in the NPRM, to be the most appropriate employment with the H–2B employer recruitment, is important because many
way to handle job opportunities in areas through at least the period of the job employers employ some U.S. workers
of substantial unemployment. order, except that the employee may be on a year-round basis, and they should
Accordingly, we will retain the dismissed for cause. not be employed alongside H–2B
provision as proposed in the Final Rule. Significantly, the Final Rule retains in workers who receive greater pay,
b. Corresponding employment. The the definition the requirement that ‘‘to benefits, and protections. Similarly, an
NPRM proposed to include a definition qualify as corresponding employment, employee advocate specifically
of corresponding employment and to the work must be performed during the commended the proposed rule’s
ES require that employers provide to period of the job order, including any coverage of situations where employers
RUL approved extension thereof.’’ Any work place H–2B workers in occupations
with 4TEGL 5–11—Designation of Areas of Substantial performed by U.S. workers outside the and/or job sites outside the scope of the
OD Unemployment (ASUs) under the Workforce specific period of the job order does not labor certification, which the
N1PR Ihnavse bsetmene nadt dAecdt (tWo tIhAe) EfoTrA P rAodgrvaimso rYye Ware (bP Ysi)t e2 0a1n2d qualify as corresponding employment. commenter stated happens regularly.
PTV is available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/ Accordingly, the Final Rule does not Thus, it asserted that protecting U.S.
K5S corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3069. require employers to offer their U.S. workers (including incumbent workers)
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2
10046 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 34/Tuesday, February 21, 2012/Rules and Regulations
who are performing the same work as grass. The firm wondered what the H– bargaining agreement or individual
the H–2B workers is necessary to ensure 2B workers should be paid in this case employment contract that guarantees at
that U.S. workers are not adversely and whether every employee is a least 35 hours of work each week and
affected by the presence of H–2B corresponding employee who would be continued employment with the H–2B
workers in the labor market. Finally, entitled to the three-fourths guarantee. employer at least through the end of the
one union stated that this additional Other employers assumed that their job order period. Incumbent employees
protection for U.S. workers would also laborers would have to be compensated who fall within one of these categories
protect H–2B workers, because U.S. at the same rate as a supervisor if the may have valuable terms of
workers would be empowered to assist supervisor occasionally performed some employment, including job security and
in policing unscrupulous H–2B of their same tasks, such as mowing, benefits, that neither H–2B workers nor
employers. because of a weather event, large golf other temporary workers have. This may
Employers, on the other hand, tournament, or shortage of staff due to account for wage differentials between
generally opposed the extension of illness. An employer association stated these incumbents and those who are
protections to workers in corresponding that employers, such as restaurants, entitled to the H–2B prevailing wage, as
employment. Some stated that they needed the flexibility to have a waitress well as other differences in terms and
could not afford to provide the same serve as a cashier or hostess, or to have conditions of employment.
terms and conditions of employment to a dishwasher assist with food The Final Rule continues to include
corresponding workers, including preparation or cooking, in order to get other workers within the definition of
paying the prevailing wage and the work done and keep employees corresponding employment as proposed
guaranteeing three-fourths of the hours. working throughout the day. in order to fulfill the DHS regulatory
For example, a golf course association Therefore, some employer requirement that an H–2B Petition will
stated that it would be financially representatives suggested that the rule not be approved unless the Secretary
impossible to provide the same wages should limit the definition to work in certifies that the employment of the
and benefits to summer high school and the occupation listed in the job order. alien will not adversely affect the wages
college laborers as it provided to H–2B They stated this would avoid a situation and working conditions of similarly
workers performing the same manual where all U.S. workers who dig holes employed U.S. workers. 8 CFR
labor. Others stated that paying the and plant bushes would be viewed as 214.2(h)(6). As the NPRM explained,
prevailing wage to corresponding corresponding employees if the H–2B Congress has long intended that
workers would not be problematic, but job order was for a supervisory similarly employed U.S. workers should
that they wanted to be able to continue landscaper with knowledge of irrigation not be treated less favorably than
to reward long-tenured employees systems and plant species but the temporary foreign workers. For
(foreign or U.S.) or more skilled staff supervisor occasionally helped to dig or example, a 1980 Senate Judiciary Report
with higher pay than new workers, such plant. These commenters also suggested on Temporary Worker Programs stated
as by providing a pay increase based that the Department limit the rule’s that U.S. employers were required to
upon years of service. scope to those U.S. workers who are offer domestic workers wages equal to
It appeared there was confusion about newly hired by the employer on or after foreign workers as a prerequisite for
the impact of the corresponding the beginning of the job order period, labor certification. See Congressional
employment requirement. Employers rather than extending it to workers Research Service: ‘‘Report to the Senate
expressed concern because they have employed prior to the employment of Committee on the Judiciary: Temporary
overlap in the job duties of various H–2B workers. Some employer Worker Programs: Background and
positions, with supervisors performing commenters suggested that the Issues, 53 (1980)’’; see also H.R. Rep.
some of the same tasks as the workers Department delete the word ‘‘any’’ from No. 99–682, pt. 1 at 80 (1986) (‘‘The
they supervise. They believed that, if before the word ‘‘work.’’ Other essential feature of the H–2 program has
there is some slight nexus between what commenters questioned whether the been and would continue to be the
an H–2B workers does and what a Department has the legal authority to requirement that efforts be made to find
higher-paid year-round worker does, the impose the requirement. domestic workers before admitting
employer would have to pay all workers After carefully considering all of these workers from abroad. A corollary rule,
the higher wage. They stated that this comments, the Department has decided again preserved in the bill, is that the
requirement would compel changes to to modify the definition of importation of foreign workers will not
management techniques and eliminate corresponding employment to delete the be allowed if it would adversely affect
or greatly reduce employers’ flexibility word ‘‘any’’ from before ‘‘work’’ in two the wages and working conditions of
to have employees perform whatever places and insert the words domestic workers similarly employed’’).
task is necessary to complete their work, ‘‘substantially the same,’’ and to exclude Current §655.22(a) reflects this
thereby harming productivity. Employer two categories of incumbent employees: principle, in part, by requiring that the
representatives stated that the definition (1) Those who have worked in the terms and conditions of offered
is so broadly worded (‘‘any’’ work relevant job continuously for the H–2B employment cannot be less favorable
included in the job order or ‘‘any’’ work employer for at least the prior 52 weeks, than those offered to H–2B workers.
performed by the H–2B workers) that it have averaged at least 35 hours of work Thus, the current regulation provides
would cover the entire workforce of or pay over those 52 weeks and have for equal treatment of workers newly
many businesses. One firm gave the received at least 35 hours of work or pay hired during the current 10-day H–2B
example of a large resort with roughly in at least 48 of the 52 weeks, as recruitment process.
2000 employees where senior demonstrated by the employer’s payroll The current regulation, however, does
ES management (including the resident records and whose terms and conditions not protect U.S. workers who engage in
RUL manager, the director of food and of employment are not substantially similar work performed by H–2B
with beverage, and even the finance manager) reduced during the job order period (an workers during the validity period of
OD clean rooms on a busy day; supervisors employer may take credit for those the job order, because it does not protect
R
N1P carry guests’ luggage; managers in the hours that were reduced due to an any incumbent employees. Therefore,
TV restaurant clear tables; and managers on employee’s voluntary leave); and (2) for example, a U.S. employee hired
P
K5S the golf course pick up trash or cut the those who are covered by a collective three months previously performing the
S
D
sroberts on VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Feb 17, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2