Opinion ID: 1570402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Host Employer Violations.

Text: The commissioner's complaint alleges the City violated 29 C.F.R. section 1910.146(c)(8)(i), (iii), as incorporated in Iowa's administrative rules. These standards provide: When an employer (host employer) arranges to have employees of another employer (contractor) perform work that involves permit space entry, the host employer shall: (i) Inform the contractor that the workplace contains permit spaces and that permit space entry is allowed only through compliance with a permit space program meeting the requirements of this section; . . . (iii) Apprise the contractor of any precautions or procedures that the host employer has implemented for the protection of employees in or near permit spaces where contractor personnel will be working[.] 29 C.F.R. § 1910.146(c)(8)(i), (iii). Although the City stipulated that it did not comply with the duties created by these standards, the City claims it is not required to comply with any duties under these standards because it is not a host employer. We disagree. By giving the commissioner both the authority to promulgate Iowa's occupational safety and health standards and the ability to make conclusive all determinations regarding the issuance of a standard, if supported by substantial evidence, the legislature vested the interpretation of standards with the commissioner. Iowa Code §§ 88.5(1)( a ), 88.5(10). As we did in division VI of this opinion, we will give appropriate deference to the agency's interpretation of the standards and will only reverse the agency's action based on an interpretation of law that is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustified. Id. §§ 17A.19(10)( l ), 17A.19(11)( c ). The same rules of interpretation that apply to statutes apply to regulations of an administrative agency. City of Iowa City v. State Bldg.Code Bd. of Rev., 663 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Iowa 2003). The purpose of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent. State v. McCoy, 618 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 2000). The words chosen by the legislature, not what it should or might have said determine legislative intent. Painters & Allied Trades Local Union v. City of Des Moines, 451 N.W.2d 825, 826 (Iowa 1990). Words are given their ordinary and common meaning by considering the context within which they are used absent a statutory definition or an established meaning in the law. Midwest Auto. III, L.L.C. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 426 (Iowa 2002). In addition, we may consider the legislative history of a statute when ascertaining legislative intent. State v. Allen, 708 N.W.2d 361, 366 (Iowa 2006). Despite a list of definitions set forth in 29 C.F.R. section 1910.146(b), there is no definition for host employer. See generally 29 C.F.R. § 1910.146(b). The common meaning of host is a person or entity that invites guests onto its premises. See Webster's Third International Dictionary 1094 (unabr. ed. 2002) (defining host as one who receives or entertains guests or strangers socially or commercially). It is clear from the context of the standards, host employer means an employer that has another employer's employees perform work on the first employer's premises. Not only does the common understanding of the word host require this interpretation, the legislative history of the standard confirms this interpretation. Legislative history contained in the Federal Register confirms that a host employer is an employer that has another employer's employees perform work on the first employer's premises. Permit Required Confined Spaces, 59 Fed.Reg. 24,080, 24,091 (June 5, 1989) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt.1910). The United States department of labor in a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 29 C.F.R. part 1910 indicated a host employer is the individual who controlled the permit-required confined spaces. See id. (stating [p]roposed (c)(10) requires individuals who control permit spaces (host employer) to provide contractors (or similar employers) who plan to have employees enter these permit spaces with all available information on permit space hazards; on efforts to comply with the standard; and on any other hazards, safety rules or emergency procedures (emphasis added)). In a later notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 29 C.F.R. part 1910 the department disclosed it received a comment from its advisory committee on construction safety and health requesting that the work site owner or the host employer be responsible for compliance with the proposed rule. Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride, 57 Fed. Reg. 36,964, 36,967 (Aug. 17, 1992) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pts.1910, 1915, 1926) (stating the Committee suggested that the Agency consider designating the work site owner, or `host' employer as being responsible for overall work site safety (emphasis added)). Finally, when OSHA issued its final rules for 29 C.F.R. part 1910, it explained the purpose of 29 C.F.R.1910.146(c)(8) is to enable . . . contractors to develop and implement permit space programs that satisfy section 1910.146. Permit-Required Confined Spaces, 59 Fed.Reg. 4462, 4492 (Jan. 14, 1993). In referring to the obligations of the host employer, one commenter referred to the host employer as host company. Id. (stating [i]n many circumstances, it is absolutely vital to the safety of all workers that confined space entries in existing process facilities remain under the close control of the host company, using one common and consistent set of procedures established for the facility, conforming to the OSHA rule (emphasis added)). Another rulemaking participant equated the host employer to the owner/operator. Id. at 4493 (stating OSHA should recognize that the owner/operator may not have expertise in confined space entry and may only be able to provide the contractor with a list of chemicals, their MSDSs and physical information on the confined space. The owner/operator may be hiring an experienced contractor to perform the work precisely because he recognizes that he does not have the expertise to perform the task safely. In such a situation, the owner could not be expected to advise the contractor. (Emphasis added.)) The record establishes the City was the owner of the sewer lines where Insituform's employees performed the work. Based on the clear meaning of the words used in the standards and the legislative history we cannot say the commissioner's interpretation and appeal board's determination that the City is a host employer under 29 C.F.R. section 1919.146(c)(8) is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustified.