Opinion ID: 186638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Only Other Power Equipment Operator Positions.

Text: 27 Mistick argues that the Department's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to conform the proposed classifications, each of which involved operating power equipment, to the lower-paid drywall finisher or ironworker classifications. The Administrator declined to do so because agency precedent determined that power equipment operators are a separate and distinct subgroup of construction worker classifications. Tower Constr., No. 94-17, 1995 WL 90010, at  (Dep't of Labor, Wage Appeals Bd. Feb. 28, 1995). Following Tower Construction, the Administrator would only compare Mistick's requested classifications to other power equipment operators. The Administrative Review Board agreed. 28 This Court affords great deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation: under well-recognized precedent, we can reject the Secretary's interpretation only if it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Sec'y of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Co., 411 F.3d 256, 260 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quotation marks omitted); see Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). The conformance regulations require only a reasonable relationship between [t]he proposed wage rate and the wage rates contained in the wage determination. 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). Applying that standard, the Department concluded in Tower Construction that power equipment operators have unique skill sets that make them different from other workers, and that it is reasonable to conform omitted power equipment operator classifications to wage rates for power equipment operator classifications in the applicable wage determination. 29 That reading of the reasonable relationship standard is far from erroneous or inconsistent with § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). In Tower Construction, the Department did what the regulations expect and require. It employed its expertise with regard to the skills required for various jobs and developed a uniform, fair approach to conforming requested power equipment operator classifications. We defer to that interpretation of § 5.5(a)(1)(ii)(A)(3). 3 30