Full opinion text
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS. j. HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: ! This action; arises out of the decision of; the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter “the! Secretary”) to rescind longstanding restrictions on the employment of workers in their i homes (homeworkers) in the knitted outer-!! wear industry. 46 Fed.Reg. 50,349 (1981). The knitted outerwear industry consists of; those firms that knit from yarn and, in the; same establishment, further manufacture,!' dye or finish knitted garments, garment sections, or accessories for use as external;! apparel, and those firms that manufacture bathing suits from any purchased fabric.; 29 C.F.R. § 530.1(f) (1981) (rescinded by 46 Fed.Reg. 50,349 (1981)). This industry employs approximately' 63,000 production! workers. 46 Fed.Reg. 50,349 (1981). The appellants — knitted outerwear manu-! facturers and manufacturers’ associations,!; labor organizations representing factory! workers in the industry, and state labor law; enforcement officials — brought suit, princi-; pally arguing that the rescission was arbi-1 trary and capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter the “APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982). Their concern is that when homeworkers are employed it is not possible effectively to enforce the minimum wage, overtime compensation and child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1976 & Supp. V 1981). They also claim that payment of submini-mum wages to homeworkers in the industry will cause competitive injury to employers complying with the Act and will drive down the wages of all employees in the industry. The District Court denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the appellees. Because we find that the Secretary’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, we reverse the decision of the District Court and vacate the action of the Secretary rescinding restrictions on the employment of homeworkers. We will remand the case to the District Court with instructions to return the matter to the Secretary for further proceedings, as may be appropriate, consistent with the opinion of this court. I. Background A. The History of Restrictions on Industrial Homework To appreciate the significance of the Secretary’s decision, one must first understand the historical context in which it arose. The concerns about industrial homework raised by the appellants echo those voiced by critics of substandard labor conditions throughout this century. See Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Dep’t of Labor, In the Matter of the Recommendation of Industry Committee No. 32 for a Minimum Wage Rate in the Knitted Outerwear Industry and Industrial Home Work in the Knitted Outerwear Industry, Findings and Opinion of the Administrator 13 (1942) (hereinafter “1942 Findings”), reprinted in I Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 79 (“The problems inherent in [homework] have been recognized for a long period of time.”). The history of legislative attempts to remedy such concerns evinces an evolving recognition of the need for restriction, rather than mere regulation, of industrial homework in industries in which it is pervasive. Regulation of homework was initially undertaken by the states around the turn of the century. Between 1871 and 1904, twelve states enacted statutes either barring conversion of homes into industrial workshops or requiring inspection and registration of homework. Comments of International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union 10 (July 1, 1981) (hereinafter “ILGWU Comments”), reprinted in II J.A. 308. In the early 1900’s, commissions in at least two of these states reported that regulatory efforts had been failures. Id. at 13, II J.A. 311 (quoting reports from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts). A commission in New York found that [h]ome work means unregulated manufacturing carried on beyond the possibility of control as to hours of women’s work, child labor, night work of minors or cleanliness and sanitation of work places. From the point of view of the community the greatest objection to home work is its essential lawlessness. Quoted in 1942 Findings, supra, at 13, reprinted in I J.A. 79 (footnote omitted). By the mid-1930’s, there was increasing support for the prohibition of homework. Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, codes of fair competition were drawn up for' 556 industries, and provisions for regulation or prohibition of homework were included in 118. Approximately one hundred of the codes “provided for the complete abolition of homework.” Branch of Research & Statistics, Wage & Hour & Public Contracts Div., Dep’t of Labor, EmPLOYMENT OF HOMEWORKERS UNDER THE FAIR Labor Standards Act 15 (1959) (hereinafter “1959 Report”), reprinted in II J.A. 489. The National Industrial Recovery Act subsequently was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570 (1935). However, one year later the United States’ Children’s Bureau reported on the relative effectiveness of prohibition and regulation under the codes prior to Schechter: Great gains were made where the codes prohibited the giving out of home work. But in the industries in which home work was still permitted, even though limited by certain regulations, the ancient evils continued to exist and to constitute a menace to the higher labor standards that had been achieved for factory workers. U.S. Children’s Bureau, Industrial Homework Under the National Recovery Administration 21 (1936), quoted in ILGWU Comments, supra, at 14, reprinted in II J.A. 312 (footnote omitted). In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the “central aim” of which “was to achieve, in those industries within its scope, certain minimum labor standards.” Mitchell v. Robert De-Mario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 292, 80 S.Ct. 332, 335, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960). See also Southland Gasoline Co. v. Bayley, 319 U.S. 44, 48, 63 S.Ct. 917, 919, 87 L.Ed. 1244 (1943). The Act established minimum ; hourly wages for employees, limited the!; number of hours employees could work without receiving overtime compensation, ' and prohibited oppressive child labor. Sec- tion 11(c) of the Act required employers to, keep and make available records of employees’ wages and hours. Shortly after pas-! sage of the Act, the Administrator (herein-! after “the Administrator”) of the Wage and ! Hour Division (hereinafter “the Division”)! issued a statement interpreting the Act to cover workers whether they worked at home or in the factory. See 1959 Report,; supra, at 18, reprinted in II J.A. 492. All!; employers of homeworkers were required to! keep special records indicating the identity of homeworkers and the time worked and piece rates paid with respect to each lot of, work issued. See 1942 Findings, supra, at 19-20, reprinted in I J.A. 85-86. Employ-!; ers were also required to obtain handbooks, from the Division and distribute them to!: homeworkers they employed so that the homeworkers would have records of times worked and rates paid. These handbooks! would be retained by the homeworker except during the time necessary for the employer to complete a periodic entry required !* by the regulations. Id. at 20, I J.A. 86.:[ Soon after the promulgation of these reg-! ulations, pressures to prohibit homework intensified. A number of states had taken such action, and a 1940 national conference on labor legislation composed of government representatives from almost every state recommended that the Division seriously consider prohibition of industrial homework. Id. at 13, I J.A. 79. Between 1941 and 1943, the Division held hearings “for seven industries in which homework was most prevalent and in which violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act had been a problem” (1959 Report, supra, at 19, reprinted in II J.A. 493): the jewelry, knitted outerwear, gloves and mittens, button and buckle, embroidery, handkerchief and women’s apparel industries. One outgrowth of these hearings, and the related investigations of the Division, was a series of reports issued by the Division. Because the reports represent the most comprehensive analysis by the Department of Labor (hereinafter “the Department”) of homework and methods of regulating it, we deem it appropriate to summarize at length the conclusions of the report dealing with the knitted outerwear industry. The Administrator reported that officials charged with enforcing the Act “are of the opinion that there is almost universal violation of the record-keeping requirements of the Wage and Hour Division with respect to home workers.” 1942 Findings, supra, at 22, reprinted in I J.A. 88. Actual inspection of fifty-six employers revealed that forty-five “were in violation of the record-keeping provisions in one manner or another.” Id. at 20, I J.A. 86. This study also found that only twelve of the fifty-two employers for whom information was available were violating neither the wage nor the hour provisions of the Act with respect to homeworkers. Id. at 22, I J.A. 88. Moreover, the employers violating either the wage or the hour provisions of the Act employed ninety-five percent of the total homeworkers in the study, and employers violating both provisions accounted for more than two-thirds of the total. Id. To determine the extent of violations within each firm, the Division interviewed 430 homeworkers. This study revealed that approximately seventy percent of these workers earned less than the minimum wage of thirty-five cents per hour and twenty-three percent earned less than twenty cents per hour. The average wage for homeworkers in the sample group was twenty-seven cents per hour, less than eighty percent of the minimum wage. Id. at 23, I J.A. 89. The Administrator then examined the underlying reasons for the violation rate and concluded that “[tjhere are many opportunities for evasion of the minimum wage standards which are inherent in the home work practice.” Id. at 26, I J.A. 92. One of the impediments to enforcement of minimum wages was the difficulty of ascertaining the identity of homeworkers: If the employer chooses to omit names of homework employees from his pay roll, there is almost no effective means of check-up since the workers may be scattered through the city or the State. Even where the list of names is properly kept, there is no means of ascertaining how many persons in the family may have been actually engaged in the work. The constant change in address of low-income families and the high turnover in home work employees complicate the problem of finding the home worker. Id. Even when workers could be identified, it was difficult to obtain accurate records of the number of hours each employee had worked, necessarily burdening efforts to ensure compliance with minimum wage, maximum hour, and overtime provisions of the Act. The Administrator found that: It is obvious, however, that the employer can have no certain knowledge of the number of hours spent by the home worker. Even with the best of intentions the home worker has many interruptions and is frequently unable to keep an accurate record of hours worked. Fear that work will be withdrawn if the home worker is unable to make the minimum is a strong incentive to falsify records. Id. Testimony by Division officials also indicated that the foregoing problems made investigation of wage and hour violations vastly more difficult when homeworkers were involved. The Division’s Regional Director for Connecticut, New Jersey and New York testified that “an investigation in a home work industry takes anywhere from two weeks to two months, that is, to! be able to get time studies and the informa- ¡' tion necessary to insure a complete inspec-" tion, whereas, the average inspector can complete one or two cases a week of factory inspection.” Id. at 27, I J.A. 93 (quoting: testimony of Arthur J. White). When violations were discovered, compensating homeworkers was onerous. Complex employer-employee relationships (often; involving middlemen) made it “difficult to) determine where to place the responsibility; for violations” in the industry: “[cjontrac-! tors usually have more than one jobber,; necessitating several individual negotiations1, and frequently manufacturers disclaim lia-1 bility for contractors’ violations.” Id. at 29,: I J.A. 95. Additionally, the responsible parties were often bankrupt by the time the) Division obtained judgment against them.; Id. These considerations led the Administrator to conclude that: The extensive evidence in the record can leave no doubt of the high incidence' of subminimum employment of home! workers in the Knitted Outerwear Industry. The record shows that industrial1; homework furnishes a ready means of: circumventing or evading the minimum, wage order for this industry, that the existing requirements of the Act have! been evaded by these means and that the continuation of home work will endanger the standards of factory employment. Id. at 30-31, I J.A. 96-97. The Administrator then considered) whether violations could be controlled if the, Division undertook time studies and fixed piece rates for homework, and concluded that this was not an effective enforcement option. First, because of wide variations in the productivity of individual workers, establishing an average piece rate resulted in “only the roughest kind of approximation of actual individual hours worked.” Id. at 32, I J.A. 98. This problem was exacerbated by variations in “size of yarn, or closeness or looseness of stitch,” id. at 33, I J.A. 99 (quoting testimony of Anna L. Hoffer), as well as different combinations of styles, sizes and color. Id. at 32,1 J.A. 98. Even if a piece rate could be identified, the Administrator found that there was no effective way to use the rate to protect the wage rights of individual homeworkers. The record also indicated that employers would still have “many ways of reducing the earnings of the home worker, even if you do pay her the prescribed piece work rate.” Id. at 32, I J.A. 98 (quoting testimony of Julius Traugot). Hence, the Administrator concluded that “effective enforcement of the minimum wage order for the Knitted Outerwear Industry cannot be expected with respect to industrial home workers by the piece-rate method and that prohibition is required.” Id. at 34, I J.A. 100. The Administrator soon acted on the information contained in the Division reports and prohibited homework in the seven industries studied, unless homeworkers came within certain narrow exceptions. The regulation applicable to the knitted outerwear industry authorized the issuance of special homework certificates to workers who were unable to adjust to factory work because of physical or mental disability, or were unable to leave home because their presence was required to care for an invalid in the home. The authority of the Administrator to take such action was upheld in Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 244, 65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921 (1945), and this authority was explicitly conferred by act of Congress in 1949. In amending the Act, Congress provided that: The Administrator is authorized to make such regulations and orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting industrial homework as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the circumvention or evasion of and to safeguard the minimum wage rate prescribed in this Act, and all existing regulations or orders of the Administrator relating to industrial homework are hereby continued in full force and effect. Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949, Pub.L. No. 81-393, § 9, 63 Stat. 910, 916-17 (1949) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 211(d) (1976)). With the Division’s authority to restrict homework thus firmly established, the Division adhered to this method of controlling homework abuses until the Secretary’s decision in 1981. B. The Secretary’s Action On December 5, 1980, the Division published a notice of hearings to obtain information on the situation with respect to industrial homework and the extent to which it might bear “on the Secretary’s statutory responsibility ‘to prevent the circumvention or evasion of and to safeguard the minimum wage rate prescribed’ in the Fair Labor Standards Act.” 45 Fed.Reg. 80,555 (1980). Hearings were subsequently held in Burlington, Vermont and Washington, D.C. At the hearings, opposition to the restrictions on homework came almost entirely from homeknitters (and their representatives) from Vermont, and government officials from Vermont. On May 5, 1981, the Division published a notice proposing removal of the restrictions on homework in the seven industries. 46 Fed.Reg. 25,108 (1981). The Department indicated that its “primary concern is the protection of workers from the illegal payment of subminimum wages,” and requested additional information on the effects of its proposal on the Act’s minimum wage provisions, the seven currently restricted industries and small businesses. Id. at 25,-109. Following receipt and consideration of more than 10,000 comments, the Secretary “decided to remove the restrictions on the employment of homeworkers in the knitted outerwear industry and to retain such restrictions in the remaining six industries.” 46 Fed.Reg. 50,348 (1981). This decision was based primarily on the finding that “substantial curtailment of employment opportunities and earning power will result from a continuation of the restrictions on industrial homework in the knitted outerwear industry. No such demonstration was made with regard to industrial homework in the other six industries [and consequently] it appears reasonable to remove the restrictions in the knitted outerwear industry only.” Id. at 50,349. The Secretary indicated that in conjunction with the removal of the restrictions the Department would undertake “a concerted compliance effort in this industry.” The Secretary suggested that such an effort could be effective: Since it appears that homeworkers will comprise only a small percentage of the approximately 63,000 production employees in this industry, an effective enforcement program is feasible. When the restrictions were established in knitted outerwear, almost 40 years ago, effective oversight of homework in this industry was not possible as it was estimated that homeworkers constituted more than 20 percent of the workforce, the enforcement program of the Department was newly established, and acceptance of the principle of a minimum wage among covered employers was much less prevalent than at present. Id. On October 27, 1981, the appellants brought an action, pursuant to section 10(b) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 703 (1982), to enjoin the Secretary’s rescission of the restrictions on homework in the knitted outerwear industry. The appellants alleged that the Secretary’s decision to rescind exceeded his statutory authority under section 11(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 211(d) (1976), was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of section 10(e) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982), and was not accompanied by an adequate statement of basis and purpose as required by section 4(b) of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) (1982). While the District Court held that the appellants did have standing to sue, it rejected their challenges to the rescission. The court found that the appellants’ argument concerning the alleged limitations of the Secretary’s statutory authority was not supported by the language or history of section 11(d), International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Donovan, Civ. No. 81-2606, mem.op. at 6 (D.D.C. July 23, 1982), reprinted in II J.A. 608, and the appellants do not raise this argument on appeal. The court then indicated that in deciding whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious, the court should review the rescission with “extreme deference.” The court reasoned that because the determination of how the minimum wage law can best be enforced is “within the special competence of the Executive Branch,” this determination should be set aside “only if there is virtually no evidence to support it.” Id. at 9, II J.A. 611. Finding that the Secretary had satisfied this minimal standard, the District Court upheld his decision. II. Standing and Cause of Action The appellants have brought this action primarily to redress injuries resulting from payment of subminimum wages by homeworker employers. They allege that this unfair competition will injure factory employers by causing them to lose markets and profits. Factory employees, in turn, will be injured because their employers will be forced to reduce wages and lay off workers. The appellees argue that as a threshold matter the appellants have neither a cause of action nor standing to sue. Both arguments are largely based on the same premise: sections 16 and 17 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, 217 (1976 & Supp. V 1981), lay “out a distinct and detailed statutory mechanism for judicial enforcement of [the Act] specifically by employees who are themselves denied the minimum wage, or by the Secretary on behalf of such employees.” Appellees’ brief, p. 34. The appel-lees argue that this statutory mechanism was intended to be exclusive, and hence forecloses judicial review of agency action under the APA. In the appellees’ view, it also means that the appellants are not “within the zone of interests” protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act and consequently do not have standing to sue under the APA. Initially, we must consider the appellants’ contentions that the appellees are foreclosed from raising the cause of action argument by their failure to raise it below, and from raising both the cause of action and standing arguments by their failure to file a cross appeal. See Wisconsin Bankers Association v. Robertson, 294 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 938, 82 S.Ct. 381, 7 L.Ed.2d 338 (1961). Because “the question of standing goes to this court’s jurisdiction, we must decide the issue” in spite of the waiver arguments raised by the appellants. Southern Mutual Help Association v. Califano, 574 F.2d 518, 522 (D.C.Cir.1977). See generally Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guiñee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2104, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (because subject-matter jurisdiction is an Article III requirement, a party does not waive the requirement by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings; additionally, “a court, including an appellate court, will raise lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own motion”). The issue of whether a complaint has properly stated a Federal cause of action is generally viewed as going to the merits, but it may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds where the Federal action “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). While we think it clear that the appellants’ assertion of a cause of action is neither wholly insubstantial nor frivolous and consequently we could reject the appel-lees’ cause of action argument because of their failure to raise it below, cf. Mount Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 279, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (where plaintiff’s allegation that his rights were violated and he was entitled to relief was “not so patently without merit as to fail the test of Bell v. Hood .. . the question as to whether the respondent stated a claim for relief under § 1331 is not of the jurisdictional sort which the Court raises on its own motion”), we will address the appellees’ argument to resolve any jurisdictional uncertainties. See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 380, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2794, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (White, J., concurring) (“if we are not obliged to [consider whether a private cause of action exists], it is at least advisable to address this threshold jurisdictional issue”). Cf. Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Au thority, 702 F.2d 1037, 1040-42 (D.C.Cir.1983) (raising sua sponte doubts about ex-, istence of direct remedy under Constitution and, while remanding on other grounds,> directing the district court to permit parties: to amend pleadings to address this issue)." The appellants argue that they have, stated a valid cause of action and are entitled to judicial review under section 10(a) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1982), which pro-; vides that “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely af-; fected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” Despite1 the apparent force of the appellants’ position, the appellees contend that this right to review of the Secretary’s action is foreclosed in this case by section 10 of the APA,; which prevents courts from reviewing actions under the APA where “statutes pre-i elude judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) (1982). We find the appellees’ contentions to be wholly unpersuasive. The burden on thei appellees in advancing an argument against; judicial review is a heavy one, and we conclude that they have completely failed to’ satisfy that burden. “The legislative material elucidating that seminal act [the APA] manifests a congressional intention that it cover a broad spectrum of administrative actions, and this Court has echoed that; theme by noting that the Administrative1 Procedure Act’s ‘generous review provisions’ must be given a ‘hospitable’ interpretation.” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-41, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1510-11, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) (quoting Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 51, 75 S.Ct. 591, 594, 99 L.Ed. 868 (1955)) (footnote omitted). We have indicated that under the APA there is “a strong presumption of reviewa-bility that can be rebutted only by a clear showing that judicial review would be inappropriate.” NRDC, Inc. v. SEC, 606 F.2d 1031, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1979). Accord Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 1857, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975) (absent express: statutory prohibition of review, the Secretary bears a “heavy burden of overcoming the strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review of his decision”); Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 140, 87 S.Ct. at 1511 (“judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress”); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 379-80, 82 S.Ct. 787, 794, 7 L.Ed.2d 809 (1962) (requiring “clear or convincing” evidence of congressional intent to make “broadly remedial provisions” of the APA unavailable to review acts under the Immigration and Nationality Act). The appellees do not suggest that any statute explicitly precludes review of the Secretary’s decision, but argue that preclusion should be implied from the Act’s provision for actions by underpaid employees, or the Secretary, to recover unpaid wages. The suggestion that provision of such an action evidences a clear and convincing intent to exclude all other judicial relief, and in particular the right of aggrieved parties to challenge allegedly arbitrary and capricious actions by the Secretary, borders on the incredible. As we recently indicated, in rejecting a very similar argument, “[a] private right of action ... is addressed to suits by private litigants against private parties allegedly acting in violation of a statutory command. The instant action, seeking judicial redress of alleged administrative misconduct, is a distinct form of proceeding .... ” Common Cause v. Department of Energy, 702 F.2d 245, 249 n. 30 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citations omitted). See also Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 141 (quoting L. Jaffe, Judicial ConTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 357 (1965)) (“ ‘The mere fact that some acts are made reviewable should not suffice to support an implication of exclusion as to others. The right of review is too important to be excluded on such slender and indeterminate evidence of legislative intent.’ ”). Moreover, rather than providing proof of an intent to restrict review, an analysis of the language and history of the Act compels allowance of the review sought in this case. The language and history unmistakably evidence an intent to protect all covered employees and employers from the economic consequences of subminimum wages paid to a small sector of the labor force. Section 2(a) of the Act, indicates that [t]he Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumental-ities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States; . .. [and] (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 202(a) (1976). Similarly, the House Report argued that following passage of the Act [n]o employer in any part of the United States in any industry affecting interstate commerce need fear that he will be required by law to observe wage and hour standards higher than those applicable to his competitors. No employee ... need fear that the fair labor standards maintained by his employer will be jeopardized by oppressive labor standards maintained by those with whom his employer competes. H.R.Rep. No. 2182, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 6-7 (1938). See also Lerwill v. Inflight Services, Inc., 379 F.Supp. 690, 696 (N.D.Cal.1974) (“The Act serves a public and a private purpose. Its enforcement provisions are intended to protect workers and their families, whom the Act is intended to benefit, see 29 U.S.C. § 202 (1976), but it is also intended to protect the employers who comply with its terms.”), aff’d sub nom. Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1978). This concern was reiterated by Congress in the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1961. Congress amended sections 16(b) and 17 of the Act to permit the Secretary to commence actions seeking payment of back wages due to employees because of minimum wage and overtime violations, even absent a request for such action by employees. Section 12, 75 Stat. 65, 74-75 (1961) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 217 (1976 & Supp. V 1981)). See H.R.Rep. No. 75, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1961). The House Report explained the need for this change: Under the present provisions of the act, the Secretary of Labor has no authority to require the payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation not paid in compliance with the law, except where an employee requests that an action be brought by the Secretary of Labor. This limitation has impeded the Secretary in his efforts to enforce the act since many employees who have not been paid in compliance with the act are hesitant about requesting legal action against their employers. Id. at 27-28. The Report argues that the amendments “would increase the level of compliance with the statute, and would protect complying employers from the unfair wage competition of the noncomplying employers.” The legislative history also suggests that the protection sought for all covered employers and employees will be jeopardized unless those parties are entitled to judicial review of the Secretary’s actions. First, there may be occasions when the interests of underpaid employees are such that they cannot be expected to bring actions which will, in effect, protect employers complying with the Act and their employees. The 1961 amendments make it clear that protection of the latter parties’ interests does not depend on private actions by underpaid employees; the Secretary may bring actions to enforce the Act even absent the consent of the underpaid employees. Second, the Act reflects a recognition of the limitations of actions for back wages as a means of assuring compliance with the Act. This is evidenced by section 11(d), which authorizes the Secretary to regulate, and if necessary prohibit, homework. 29 U.S.C. § 211(d) (1976). Hence, it is apparent that effective protection of the interests of complying employers and their employees significantly depends on reasonable actions by the Secretary. We therefore conclude that permitting the appellants to seek judicial review to insure that such actions are not arbitrary and capricious is entirely consistent with the language, history and purposes of the Act. The foregoing discussion permits us to dispose quickly of the challenges to the appellants’ standing to sue. The crux of the appellees’ position is that the appellants do not fall within the “zone of interests” protected by. the Act. See generally Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153-54, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829-30, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). We have indicated that in applying the zone of interests test we “must discern whether the interest asserted by a party in the particular instance is one intended by Congress to be protected or regulated by the statute under which suit is brought.” Control Data Corp. v. Baldrige, 655 F.2d 283, 293-94 (D.C.Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 881, 102 S.Ct. 363, 70 L.Ed.2d 190 (1981). Additionally, “ ‘slight’ beneficial indicia will be sufficient to sustain a party’s assertion of standing.” Id. at 295. The earlier discussion in this section reveals that there are clear indicia that compliant employers and their employees are within the zone of interests protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Consequently such parties are persons “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (1982), and (assuming they meet the other tests for standing) have standing to sue under the APA. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732-33, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364-65, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 164-65, 90 S.Ct. 832, 836, 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, 397 U.S. at 153-57, 90 S.Ct. at 829-31 (1970). Hence, we reject the suggestion that the manufacturers, manufacturers’ associations and labor organizations do not satisfy the zone of interests test in this case. The appellees also suggest in a footnote that the relief sought by the appellants — reimposition of restrictions — will not redress the injuries they claim. Appellees’ brief, pp. 38-39 n. 21. It is well-established that to have standing a party must allege an injury that “ ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)). The appellees argue that to satisfy this standard, the appellants must show that if restrictions are reimposed, employers of homeknitters will employ factory labor. This position reflects a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the appellants’ alleged injuries. The appellants allege that unfair competition (i.e., payment of subminimum wages) from homeworker employers will injure factory employers paying lawful wages and the resulting pressures to lay off workers and reduce wages will injure factory employees. We must accept these allegations as true for purposes of determining standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2207, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The alleged injuries can be redressed by controlling the source of the unfair competition (i.e., restricting employment of homeworkers); in other words, whether homeworker employers thereafter decide to employ factory workers simply has no relevance to the appellants’ claims. Cf. Simon, 426 U.S. at 45 n. 25, 96 S.Ct. at 1927 n. 25 (“The complaint in Data Processing alleged injury that was directly traceable to the action of the defendant federal official, for it complained of injurious competition that would have been illegal without that action.”). Alternatively, the appellees’ argument can be read to suggest that injurious competition will continue if restrictions are reimposed because homework employers will | either hire homeworkers illegally or will' move their operation abroad and compete > by using lower-priced foreign labor. This claim is substantially different than those!' on which the Supreme Court relied in the : cases cited by the appellees — Warth and ; Simon. In Warth, the Court found that low and moderate income individuals seeking housing did not have standing to challenge ¡; exclusionary zoning practices, in part be-!; cause redress of their injury “depended on: the efforts and willingness of third parties' to build low- and moderate-cost housing.” 422 U.S. at 505, 95 S.Ct. at 2208. Similarly, the relief sought by the plaintiffs in Simon (denial of favorable tax treatment to hospitals that did not serve indigents) would only! encourage third parties to provide the hospital treatment desired by the appellants; whether third parties would provide this treatment was “speculative .at best.” 426! U.S. at 43, 96 S.Ct. at 1926 (footnote omit-!' ted). In contrast, the relief sought by appellants would make the injurious conduct of third parties complained of in this case illegal; only by taking extraordinary measures — i.e., violating the law or starting new businesses overseas — could third parties prevent redress of the appellants’ injuries. The appellants need not negate every conceivable impediment to effective relief no matter how speculative, Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 78, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2633, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), nor are they required “to prove that granting the requested relief is certain to alleviate” their injury. Community Nutrition Institute v. Block, 698 F.2d 1239, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1983). See also Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352, 367-68, 100 S.Ct. 2232, 2240-41, 65 L.Ed.2d 184 (1980). The speculation offered by the appellees is not supported by sound reasoning or the record. Also, as Congress passed the Act partly to provide redress to employers from unfair competition, the suggestion that effective enforcement of the Act will not have this effect directly contravenes the congressional judgment underlying the Act. In short, Congress intended to afford protection to both the employers and employees who are represented in this lawsuit. There is no reason in the present case for the appellants to be denied judicial review to assure that this intent is reasonably being effectuated. III. Discussion A. Scope of Review Both parties agree that the rescission was informal, notice-and-comment rulemaking conducted pursuant to section 4 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1982), and as such is to be found unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982). See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2865, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Office of Communications of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413, 1422 (D.C.Cir.1983). However, the parties vigorously dispute the rig- or with which this test should be applied when a court reviews an agency’s rescission of longstanding policy. This case is a classic example of an agency attempt to modify a longstanding policy by rescinding regulations embodying that policy. In our view, whatever questions may have existed with respect to the proper standard of judicial review of such actions were put to rest last term when the Supreme Court decided Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. In that case, involving rescission by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter “NHTSA”) of a regulation requiring installation of passive restraints in motor vehicles produced after 1982, the Court rejected the suggestion that rescission was analogous to agency inaction, which is judged by an unusually narrow standard of review. The Court indicated that “revocation of an extant regulation is substantially different than a failure to act,” 103 S.Ct. at 2866, reasoning that [Revocation constitutes a reversal of the agency’s former views as to the proper course. A “settled course of behavior embodies the agency’s informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies committed to it by Congress. There is, then, at least a presumption that those policies will be carried out best if the settled rule is adhered to.” Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 807-808, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 2374-2375, 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973). Id. While the Court recognized that an agency must be given latitude to adapt its rules to accommodate changing circumstances, it noted that these changes “do not always or necessarily point in the direction of deregulation.” Id. “In the abstract, there is no more reason to presume” that such changes require “rescission of prior action, instead of a revision in or even the extension of current regulation.” Id. Hence, the Court concluded that if there is “a presumption from which judicial review should start, that presumption — contrary to petitioners’ views — is not against safety regulations, but against changes in current policy that are not justified by the rulemak-ing record.” Id. In other words, the standard of judicial review is not altered by the fact that the agency has rescinded a regulation, rather than moved in some other direction. Id. We find the Court’s reasoning particularly compelling as applied to the case at hand, since this case involves review of an agency’s rescission of a longstanding policy. The Division’s decision in 1942 to restrict homework was an outgrowth of many years of unsuccessful attempts by state and Federal officials to regulate homework. These officials, and commissions reviewing their efforts, concluded that even the most vigorous enforcement efforts could not prevent violations of labor standards when homeworkers are used. The Division’s comprehensive review of this experience led it to conclude that restricting homework was the only effective way to enforce the minimum wage in the knitted outerwear industry, and this position was adhered to by the Division for almost forty years. This settled course of behavior truly embodied the Division’s informed judgment that restricting homework would best carry out the policy dictated by Congress. The appellees’ suggestion that the restrictions on homework were not seriously reexamined for forty years and that this should narrow our review of the rescission of the restrictions is untenable. As we have explained, the relative efficacy of regulation and restriction received substantial attention for many years prior to adoption of the homework restrictions, and was exhaustively studied by the Division in 1942. The Division also studied violations of the Act by employers of homeworkers in 1959, to obtain information “to aid development of a more effective enforcement program.” 1959 Report, supra, at 1, reprinted in II J.A. 475. The Division’s adherence to the restrictions between 1942 and 1980 is a reflection of the widespread and persisting decision that restriction of homework was a prerequisite to effective enforcement of the Act. This support for the restrictions is evidenced by comments received from five Secretaries of Labor, serving a number of administrations between 1960 and 1981, and from the Administrator of the Division from 1958 to 1969, voicing strong opposition to the proposed rescission and arguing that the need for restriction of homework is just as compelling today as it was in 1942. This consistent support for the restrictions is a sharp contrast to the situation reviewed by the Supreme Court in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. There, the Court reviewed the rescission of a regulation which, over the course of its “complex and convoluted history,” had been “imposed, amended, rescinded, reimposed, and now rescinded again.” 103 S.Ct. at 2862. We cannot discern any rational basis for being less circumspect in reviewing the rescission of a regulation that has been uniformly supported since its adoption forty years ago, than the Supreme Court was in reviewing rescission of a highly controversial regulation. Consequently, the normal standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, is applicable to this case. This review is focused and restricted, and it does not permit us to substitute our judgment for that of the agency. 103 S.Ct. at 2866. “Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” Id. at 2866-67 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 246, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)). We must “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Bowman Transportation Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285, 95 S.Ct. 438, 442, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)). An agency’s decision will normally be found arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 103 S.Ct. at 2867. Moreover, “[i]t is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Id. at 2870. Hence, this court may not supply a basis for the agency’s action, SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947), or accept “appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action.” Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 103 S.Ct. at 2870. However, we will “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transportation Inc., 419 U.S. at 286, 95 S.Ct. at 442. In short, our review of the Secretary’s decision is not merely perfunctory. We are to engage in a “searching and careful” inquiry, the keystone of which is to ensure that the Secretary engaged in reasoned de-cisionmaking. American Public Gas Association v. FPC, 567 F.2d 1016, 1029-30 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 1457, 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978). See also Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 103 S.Ct. at 2871 (indicating that agency’s explanation “is not sufficient to enable us to conclude that the rescission was the product of reasoned decisionmaking”); Specialty Equipment Market Association v. Ruckelshaus, 720 F.2d 124 at 132 (D.C.Cir.1983) (when reviewing agency’s determinations under “arbitrary and capricious” standard, “we must make a substantial and searching inquiry to ensure that the agency’s decisions are the product of reasoned thought and based upon a consideration of relevant factors”). B. Failure to Consider Alternatives The record before this court makes it clear that the Secretary failed to provide any explanation for his implicit rejection of alternatives to elimination of restrictions on homework. Therefore, in light of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, we are constrained to hold that the Secretary’s failure to consider such alternatives, and to explain why such alternatives were not chosen, was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of section 10(e) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982). There is little dispute about the availability of less far-reaching choices than complete rescission of homework restrictions in the knitted outerwear industry. Indeed, two possible choices were identified in the Department’s notice of the Vermont and Washington, D.C. hearings. In that notice the Secretary requested information on “[wjhether the certificate requirements should be revised to recognize additional circumstances justifying certification, such as child care and other family demands that may tend to preclude factory employment,” and “[wjhether the certificate requirements should differentiate between urban and rural areas.” 45 Fed.Reg. 80,556 (1980). During the hearings, and in the comments received later, there was substantial testimony which could have led the Secretary to opt for such modifications of the existing restrictions, rather than complete rescission. In fact, the testimony challenging the restrictions predominantly related to the hardship that the restrictions imposed in rural Vermont. There was ample testimony indicating that the situation in Vermont was substantially different than that existing in more urban states and necessitated different treatment. Specific proposals were advanced that would have permitted accommodation of these differences by means short of complete rescission of restrictions. The most detailed was a proposal submitted by the Attorney General of Vermont suggesting that the Secretary adopt a program whereby rural states meeting certain criteria could be authorized to certify homeworkers. A comment from a Vermont Senator reiterated the possibility of expanding certification to permit homework by certain individuals whose circumstances precluded factory work. Perhaps the clearest indication that these proposals warranted serious consideration is provided by the Secretary’s explanation of the rationale for rescission. In summarizing the evidence supporting rescission he said that commentators “cited the lack of adequate transportation, the need to remain at home to care for children and other family matters, as well as the lack of factory employment in most rural areas.” 46 Fed.Reg. 50,348 (1981). He also indicated that “evidence was presented which showed that a continuation of the restrictions would have an adverse effect on employment opportunities, particularly in rural areas.... Much of this employment, the testimony and comments indicated, is in areas where public transportation is not available and few or no other gainful employment opportunities exist.” Id. at 50,349. Obviously one potential means of redressing these concerns is to permit homework only in situations where these impediments to factory employment are shown to exist. The Secretary’s explanation provides no basis whatsoever for rejecting this approach and instead allowing all individuals, in rural and urban areas, to engage in homework regardless of their circumstances. The Secretary’s explanation of his decision does not provide the slightest indication that he gave any consideration to the alternatives raised in his original notice and the comments. Indeed, the affidavit of a Division official explaining the decision, and the arguments of the appellees’ counsel in this appeal, make no claim that these alternatives received consideration. It is absolutely clear from decisions by the Supreme Court and this court that such; an “artificial narrowing of options,” Pillai v. CAB, 485 F.2d 1018, 1027 (D.C.Cir.1973), is. antithetical to reasoned decisionmaking ¡ and cannot be upheld. Only last terfn the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. There, NHTSA justified its rescission of a requirement that, motor vehicles be: equipped with either airbags or automatic seatbelts, by arguing that manufacturers: were going to opt for automatic seatbelts and consumers would circumvent this option by detaching the seatbelts. The Supreme Court found this decision unreasoned: and vacated the rescission. As we find in' the instant case, the Court found that the!, agency’s explanation could not justify its drastic decision to rescind rather than modify the standard to disallow the automatic seatbelts option. 103 S.Ct. at 2869 (“Even if this conclusion were acceptable in its entirety, standing alone it would not justify any more than an amendment of Standard; 208 to disallow compliance by means of the one technology which will not provide effective passenger protection.”) (citation omitted). The Court explained that “[a]t the! very least this alternative way of achieving the objectives of the Act should have been addressed and adequate reasons given for its abandonment.” Id. The Court in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association indicated that it did not “broadly require an agency to consider all policy alternatives in reaching [a] decision. It is true that a rulemaking ‘cannot be found wanting simply because the agency failed to include every alternative device and thought conceivable by the mind of man ... regardless of how uncommon or unknown that alternative may have been 103 S.Ct. at 2871 (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 551, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1215, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978)). However, the options ignored by the Secretary in this case certainly cannot be characterized as “uncommon or unknown.” These options were specifically mentioned in the notice of hearings and the comments received by the Secretary, and would be an obvious response to the concerns expressed by the Secretary. Our decision in Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F.2d 1413 (D.C.Cir.1983), is also analogous to the case at hand. In that case, we considered whether the FCC’s decision to eliminate the requirement that licensees maintain programming logs and make those logs available to the public was arbitrary and capricious. We found that the Commission’s failure “to give sufficient consideration” to the benefits of a more modest possibility— modification of log requirements to reflect more appropriately the informational needs of the Commission’s new regulatory scheme — required remanding the Commission’s decision on log requirements so that the Commission could undertake such an inquiry. In Action on Smoking and Health v. CAB, 699 F.2d 1209 (D.C.Cir.), opinion supplemented by 713 F.2d 795 (D.C.Cir.1983), we emphasized that in addition to requiring rational consideration of alternatives, the APA demands an adequate explanation when these alternatives are rejected. Hence, we vacated a decision by the Civil Aeronautics Board to rescind certain restrictions on smoking in airplanes because the Board had failed adequately to address alternatives proposed in the comments. We relied on the requirement of section 4(b) that an agency engaging in notice and comment rulemaking “shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) (1982). We indicated that while an agency “need not respond to every comment,” id. at 1216, it must respond in a reasoned manner to “ ‘explain how the agency resolved any significant problems raised by the comments, and to show how that resolution led the agency to the ultimate rule.’ ” Id. (quoting Rodway v. USDA, 514 F.2d 809, 817 (D.C.Cir.1975) (footnote omitted)). The Board’s claim that it had in fact considered the alternatives, and its attempt to rely on generalized and conclusory policy considerations as grounds for rejecting them, were inadequate: “[t]he Board must explain why a particular proposal is inconsistent with the balance between regulation and competition sought by the Board.” Id. In the same manner, we hold that the Secretary should have considered and explained why the proposals mentioned in his notice of hearing were inconsistent with the balance he sought between maximizing employment and effective enforcement of the minimum wage. We do not suggest that he had to opt for any particular one of these proposals. However, he was required to address common and known or otherwise reasonable options, and to explain any decision to reject such options. His complete failure to satisfy these quintessential aspects of reasoned decisionmaking is the primary basis for our decision to vacate his rescission of the restrictions in the knitted outerwear industry. C. Other Unreasoned Aspects of the Decision 1. Enforcement Feasibility Our decision to vacate is also grounded in the unreasoned nature of the Secretary’s decision that an effective enforcement program would be feasible if restrictions on homework in the knitted outerwear industry were lifted. Before explaining the particular deficiencies in the Secretary’s analysis, we shall summarize and review the evidence that was before the Secretary when he made this decision. We engage in this inquiry not in an effort to “upset the agency’s view of the facts” but instead to highlight “the limitations of this record in supporting the agency’s decision.” Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 103 S.Ct. at 2871. The evidence in the record supporting the Secretary’s decision is at best minimal. It comes primarily from Vermont home knitters and their representatives who indicated that knitters were paid more than the minimum wage. These knitters often did not have records of the hours they worked — in fact, some testified that factors such as distractions at home made estimating the number of hours virtually impossible — and made no claims about the wages paid to homeworkers outside the rural setting of Vermont. The appellees also [ claimed that there were data showing that the homework restrictions did not reduce the incidence of violations of the Act. The;, explanations of these data by both the appellants and the appellees reveal that these data provide no meaningful support for this, conclusion. Furthermore, as we have explained at length, substantial evidence is provided by years of enforcement experience prior to imposition of the restrictions, and the Division’s investigation in the early 1940’s, which suggest that the minimum wage law cannot be effectively enforced unless homework is restricted. This conclusion is also supported by testimony at the 1981 hearings, and analysis in the subsequent comments, suggesting that the enforcement problems created by homework continue today. Comments received from five former Secretaries of Labor argued that lifting the restrictions would “turn America back to the dark ages of industrial inhumanity.” Secretaries’ Comments, supra note 1, reprinted in I J.A. 172, 174, 176. Opposition was also voiced by the former Administrator of the Division from 1958 to 1969. Comments of Clarence Lundquist (June 18, 1981), reprinted in I J.A. 252. Law enforcement officials in California, Connecticut and New York, all of whom must deal with large urban centers, argued that homework defies effective enforcement of the minimum wage unless restricted. The record further reveals the concerns of a Regional Administrator of the Department’s Employment Standards Administration: Additionally, homeworking is a perfect vehicle for utilizing and taking advantage of undocumented workers, it has been disclosed through investigations. Our many investigations covering manufacturing industries has [sic] also uncovered realistic examples of the abuses of the industrial homework regulations, both state and federal. The record includes specific evidence indicating that homeworkers are typically paid subminimum wages. The Administrator of the Division of Labor Standards for the Rhode Island Department of Labor testified that “[w]hen we have interviewed home workers we have found that they are pai