Opinion ID: 1570402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interpretation of the General Industry Standards.

Text: The appeal board interpreted the IOSH standards and concluded that the general industry permit-required confined spaces standards were applicable to this sewer project, rather than the construction employment standards. The City contends the board erred in applying the general industry permit-required confined spaces standards. We disagree. The legislature gave the labor commissioner the authority to promulgate Iowa's occupational safety and health standards. Iowa Code § 88.5(1)(a). The legislature also made all determinations regarding the issuance of a standard by the commissioner conclusive if substantial evidence supports the standard. Id. § 88.5(10). This legislative authority vests the interpretation of standards with the Iowa department of labor. Thoms v. Iowa Public Employee's Ret. Sys., 715 N.W.2d 7, 11-12 (Iowa 2006). Accordingly, we will give appropriate deference to the agency's interpretation of the standards and reverse the agency's action if it is based on an interpretation of law that is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustified. Iowa Code §§ 17A.19(10)( l ), 17A.19(11)( c ). To aid it in its interpretation of 29 C.F.R. parts 1910 and 1926, the commissioner relied on OSHA instruction CPL 2.100 and a standard interpretation. We find nothing wrong with the agency's reliance on these documents. The federal occupational safety health review commission has found it proper for OSHA to rely on similar documents to support its interpretation of a safety standard. See Drexel, 18 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) at 43,875 n. 3 (citing numerous decisions where the federal agency relied on CPLs to support interpretations of standards). Additionally, the City introduced its own standard interpretation in support of its case. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Standard Interpretations  Construction v. Maintenance (Aug. 11, 1994). This interpretation is consistent with the OSHA instruction and the standard interpretation relied on by the commissioner. It provides in relevant part that: There is no specified definition for maintenance, nor a clear distinction between terms such as maintenance, repair, or refurbishment. Maintenance activities can be defined as making or keeping a structure, fixture or foundation (substrates) in proper condition in a routine, scheduled, or anticipated fashion. This definition implies Keeping equipment working in its existing state, i.e., preventing its failure or decline. However, this definition, (taken from the directive on confined spaces) is not dispositive; and, consequently, determinations of whether a contractor is engaged in maintenance operations rather than construction activities must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all information available at a particular site. . . . In other instances, where an activity cannot be easily classified as construction or maintenance even when measured against all of the above factors, the activity should be classified so as to allow application of the more protective 1910 or 1926 standard, depending on the hazard. In such cases, the citation should be issued in the alternative with the emphasis on the more protective standard. Id. In other words, because there is no bright line rule to determine whether an activity is maintenance or repair, we must look at the facts of each case to determine whether the task being performed was repair or maintenance. If the question is close as to whether the work constitutes repair or maintenance, the agency should apply the standards that provide more protection to the employees, depending on the hazard. Therefore, we cannot say the board's interpretation of the IOSH standards was irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustified when it interpreted the standards and applied the more protective general industry permit-required confined spaces standards contained in 29 C.F.R. part 1910.