“Docket No. 82-0427 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v.CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 82-0427DECISION Before:\u00a0 BUCKLEY, Chairman; RADER and WALL, Commissioners.\u00a0 BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissionunder 29 U.S.C ? 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”).\u00a0 The Commission is an adjudicatoryagency, independent of the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration.\u00a0 It was established to resolve disputes arising out of enforcementactions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the Act and has no regulatoryfunctions.\u00a0 See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).Administrative Law Judge Edwin G. Salyers affirmed two items of a citationissued by the Secretary to Cardinal Industries, Inc. Items 2b and 2c of citation 2 allegedthat, contrary to 29 C.F.R.? 1910.23(c)(1), Cardinal had not installed guardrails on twoplatforms.\u00a0 Item 3 of that citation alleged that, contrary to 29 C.F.R. ?1910.132(a), Cardinal’s employees had not worn safety belts. Cardinal contends that thesegeneral industry standards do not apply to its workplace.\u00a0 Cardinal claims thatbecause its employees are engaged in construction work, the construction standards apply.\u00a0We agree with Cardinal that its employees are engaged in construction work. \u00a0Wealso conclude that the general industry standards are preempted by specifically applicableconstruction standards.\u00a0 Inasmuch as the Secretary did not allege and the parties didnot try violations of those construction standards, we vacate the items.ICardinal operates a facility in Columbus, Ohio at which modular housing unitsare constructed.\u00a0 Completed units are removed from the facility and assembledelsewhere to form, residences or other buildings.\u00a0 Judge Salyers described theoperations at Cardinal’s facility as follows: The production line moves through approximately 25 work stations.\u00a0 Eachunit is mechanically propelled on a track from each station to the other.\u00a0 The firstoperation is the placing of the floor.\u00a0 Once this is accomplished, the unit begins tomove through the various work stations where front walls, side walls, rear walls, ceiling,roof, gypsum, roofing felt, shingles, trim and other items are subsequently applied. . .The entire operation is performed in an enclosed facility which encompasses three cityblocks.The various parts of a unit are joined by Cardinal’s employees, who arerepresented by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.\u00a0 The parts arejoined in the same manner as at a building site.\u00a0 For example, after the floor is setin place, Cardinal’s employees erect the walls, attach insulation, gypsum board andsiding.\u00a0 When the roof is in place, the employees unroll felt, cut it to the size ofthe roof and nail it to the roof.\u00a0 They then put down shingles and nail them to theroof.\u00a0 Cardinal’s employees also install plumbing and electrical wiring.Cardinal contends that its operation involves \”construction work\”within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.12.[[1]]\u00a0 It argues that but for its\”unique operation,\” the units it produces would be constructed on a buildingsite.\u00a0 Cardinal points out that the units all have the roofs, sides, interior walls,flooring, and electrical wiring typical of any house or building.\u00a0 It notes that thecarpentry and plumbing skills required to build the units are those generally associatedwith construction.The Secretary claims that the indoor assembly line and permanent workstations at Cardinal’s plant are the hallmarks of a classic assembly-line manufacturingoperation to which the general industry standards in 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 apply.\u00a0 Herelies on Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual47, 94 (1972), which lists the production of \”Prefabricated Wood Buildings andComponents\” under manufacturing, but classifies the fabrication of buildings on aconstruction site as construction.\u00a0 He also cites Fleetwood Homes of Texas, Inc.,80 OSAHRC 97\/C4, 8 BNA OSHC 2125, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,837 (No. 76-2332, 1980), and ProwlerTravel Trailers of New York, Inc., 77 OSAHRC 207\/A2, 6 BNA OSHC 1134, 1977-78 CCH OSHD? 22,397 (No. 15636, 1977), decisions in which the Commission applied general industrystandards to the assembly line production of mobile homes.\u00a0 The Secretary alsoargues, relying on Royal Logging Co., 79 OSAHRC 84\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1744, 1979 CCHOSHD ? 23,914 (No. 15169, 1979), aff’d, 645 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1981), that thenature of the overall operation rather than use of construction skills or equipmentdetermines whether an employer is involved in construction.The judge found that the construction industry standards do not apply. \u00a0He found that although \”the end product of [Cardinal’s] operations is a finishedhousing unit, the nature of the operation was more akin to manufacturing than . . . toconstruction.\”\u00a0 He reached this conclusion primarily because the units, which\”move along a line much like any other manufactured product,\” were produced onan assembly line entirely within Cardinal’s facility.IIThe applicability provisions in 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 control the resolution ofthis question.\u00a0 Section 1910.5(a) states that the occupational safety and healthstandards in Part 1910 \”apply with respect to employment performed in a workplacein\” the United States.\u00a0 Section 1910.12, which adopts the construction standardsin Part 1926 as occupational safety and health standards, states that they \”shallapply . . , to every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged inconstruction work.\”\u00a0 Section 1910.5(c) provides a rule for choosing betweenthese standards.\u00a0 Subsection (c)(1) states that \”[i]f a particular standard isspecifically applicable to a condition . . . [or] operation . . ., it shall prevail overany different general standard which might otherwise be applicable to the same condition .. . [or] operation . . . . \” \”On the other hand,\” states section1910.5(c)(2) \”any standard shall apply . . . to any employment and place ofemployment in any industry, even though particular standards are also prescribed for theindustry. . . .\” The question here, therefore, is whether there are specificallyapplicable Part 1926 standards.\u00a0 To answer that question, it is first necessary todetermine whether Part 1926 is applicable at all, i.e., whether Cardinal’s employees areengaged in \”construction work\” within the meaning of section 1910.12.\u00a0 Wefind that Cardinal’s employees were engaged in construction work.\u00a0 We also find thatthere are specifically applicable construction standards.Section 1910.12(b) defines \”construction work\” as \”work forconstruction, alteration, and\/or repair, including painting and decorating.\”\u00a0 Indetermining whether an operation constitutes \”work for construction,\” theCommission has held that Part 1926 applies only to employers who are actually engaged inconstruction work or who are engaged in operations that are an integral and necessary partof construction work.\u00a0 United Geophysical Corp., 81 OSAHRC 77\/D6, 9 BNA OSHC2117, 2121, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,579, p. 31,906 (No. 78-6265, 1981), aff’d withoutpublished opinion, 683 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1982).\u00a0 Although Cardinal’s employeesconstruct housing units in a factory setting, the carpentry, plumbing, roofing andelectrical work they perform is identical to that performed at a construction site, andidentical to the kind of work that OSHA specifically intended Part 1926 to cover.\u00a0 Seesections 1910.17(b)(2) and 1926.1051(b)(2) (applying Part 1926 to \”light residentialconstruction\”).[[2]]\u00a0 That Cardinal’s employees work in a building rather thanoutdoors at the site of final assembly cannot be controlling, for under section 1910.12,it is the nature of the work rather than its location that controls.\u00a0 Indeed, section1910.12’s references to alteration and repair make this clear, for such work frequentlytakes place within pre-existing structures.\u00a0 Finally, the construction activitiesperformed by Cardinal’s employees are not ancillary to or in aid of a nonconstructionpurpose.\u00a0 See Royal Logging, 7 BNA OSHC at 1750, 1979 CCH OSHDat p. 28,996.\u00a0 They are directed at Cardinal’s primary function–construction.[[3]]We now address whether there are construction standards specificallyapplicable to the cited conditions.\u00a0 See Daniel Construction Co.,82 OSAHRC 23\/A2, 10 BNA OSHC 1549, 1554-5, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,027, p. 32,675 (No. 16265,1982).\u00a0 We find that there are.\u00a0 Two of the items allege that guardrails werenot provided to prevent falls from platforms.\u00a0 As the Secretary’s brief implicitlyconcedes, however, there is a construction industry standard, section 1926.500(d)(1), thatrequires guardrails on \”open-sided floors, platforms, and runways.\”\u00a0 Thethird item alleges a failure to require the use of safety belts on an unguarded roof edge.\u00a0 The construction industry standard on personal protective equipment, section1926.28(a), \”requir[es] the wearing of appropriate personal protectiveequipment\” and cross-references 29 C.F.R. Part 1926, Subpart E, which contains astandard, section 1926.104, on safety belts.[[4]]\u00a0 Those standards govern the citedconditions.Under Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings may beamended to conform to the evidence when an issue not raised by the pleadings has beentried by express or implied consent of the parties.\u00a0 Commissioner Wall would notamend, sua sponte, in the absence of an opportunity for Cardinal to argue whetheramendment is appropriate, and whether it be prejudiced. Chairman Buckley would not amendhere because there was no express consent to try whether the applicable constructionstandards had been violated.\u00a0 He would not find implied consent because he does notfind that Cardinal squarely recognized that violations of the construction standards werein issue, much less that it consented to try these issues.\u00a0 See McWilliamsForge Co., 84 OSAHRC____, 11 BNA OSHC 2128, 2129-30, 1984 CCH OSHD ? 26,979, p.34,669 (No. 80-5868, 1984).\u00a0 We will not therefore, amend the pleadings to allegeviolations of the construction standards in Part 1926.Accordingly, items 2b, 2c, and 3 of citation 2 are vacated.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED:\u00a0 December 6, 1985\u00a0RADER, Commissioner, dissenting:I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the citationitems on the ground that Cardinal is not subject to the general industry standards setforth at Part 1910 of Title 29.\u00a0 In my view, the judge properly determined thatCardinal is engaged in a manufacturing process rather than a construction operation.In finding the construction standards applicable to Cardinal, the majorityrelies primarily on the type of work activities performed by Cardinal’s employees,concluding that such activities as carpentry, plumbing, roofing and electrical work arecharacteristic of the work normally performed at construction sites.\u00a0 The majorityalso reasons that these work duties are integrally related to Cardinal’s primary\”function,\” which the majority regards as construction work because Cardinalmanufactures parts of housing and motel units.\u00a0 Thus, the majority’s decision isbased on two related but distinct concepts–the employees’ specific work duties or theskills they represent on the one hand and the overall purpose or objective of theiremployment on the other.\u00a0 Neither concept, however, supports the majority’sconclusion that Cardinal is engaged in construction work as that term is defined and usedin the Secretary’s standards.The Commission has previously recognized that under the Secretary’s standardsthe differentiation between general industry and construction cannot be based solely onthe nature of the specific work duties or types of work activities in which employees areengaged.\u00a0 In B.J. Hughes, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 17\/D5, 10 BNA OSHC 1545, 1982 CCHOSHD ? 25,977 (No. 76-2165, 1982), the Commission rejected the Secretary’s argument thatcementing the casing of an oil well during drilling constitutes construction work becausethe employees worked with pumps, derricks, concrete pouring equipment, and materialhandling equipment of the sort normally used in construction work.\u00a0 The Commissionreasoned that equipment of this type is frequently used in nonconstruction work as well,and noted that many of the construction standards regulating particular types of equipmenthave counterparts in the general industry standards governing the same equipment.\u00a0 Inthe present case, the specific types of Cardinal’s work activities that the majoritycharacterize as \”construction\” are in fact addressed by general industry as wellas construction standards.\u00a0 Thus, 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.213, a general industry standardentitled \”Woodworking machinery requirements,\” imposes requirements for varioustypes of saws and other woodworking machinery, and is applicable generally to all types ofwoodworking operations.\u00a0 Noblecraft Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,614 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1980).\u00a0 Similarly, section 1910.241, \”Hand and PortablePowered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment,\” governs many types of portable tools,both powered and non-powered.\u00a0 Section 1910.252 applies to \”Welding, cutting,and brazing,\” and extensive regulations for working with electrical conductors andrelated apparatus appear in section 1910.137, \”Electrical protective devices,\”and Subpart S, \”Electrical,\” 29 C.F.R. ?? 1910.301-308, 1910.399.[[1]] Theseare all general industry standards that apply to the techniques, tools, and equipment usedin Cardinal’s operation.[[2]]\u00a0 Thus, the fact that Cardinal’s employees performcarpentry, plumbing, and electrical work does not in itself mean that Cardinal’s operationis controlled by the construction standards in Part 1926.[[3]]Since the specific work duties conducted by Cardinal’s employees are notdispositive of the question whether Cardinal is engaged in construction work under Part1926, it is appropriate to consider, as does the majority, whether the constructionstandards govern the type of business in which Cardinal is engaged.\u00a0 See B.J.Hughes, supra, 10 BNA OSHC at 1547, 1982 CCH OSHD at p. 32,579. As the majorityindicates, Cardinal fabricates housing units in a factory setting away from, and having nodirect connection with, the actual site where the component units will be placed andfinally assembled into a complete dwelling and then occupied.\u00a0 The majority concludesthat such work constitutes construction because the type of work performed is thedispositive factor. [[4]] However, in my view the physical conditions under whichCardinal’s employees perform this work are controlling.The stated purpose of the Act is to assure \”safe and healthful workingconditions\” by, among other things, \”authorizing the Secretary of Labor to setmandatory occupational safety and health standards.\”\u00a0 Section 2(b), 29 U.S.C. ?651(b).\u00a0 Since standards are a basic mechanism by which the purpose of the Act is tobe achieved, it is appropriate in determining the scope of a particular set of standardsto consider the nature of the working conditions sought to be regulated.The physical configuration of Cardinal’s facility is very much different fromthat normally encountered on the site or location of a building or structure.\u00a0 Theuse of an assembly line comprised of fixed work stations, the overall factory setting, andthe generally controlled environment thereby provided, are obvious characteristics of amanufacturing rather than an on-site construction operation.[[5]]\u00a0 The basicenvironment in which Cardinal’s employees perform their work is indeed exemplified by thecitation items at issue dealing with unguarded platforms.\u00a0 Both the \”felt rackplatform\” (an elevated work surface attached to the structure of Cardinal’s buildingand containing a roller used to dispense roofing felt to the modules as they pass by) andthe \”scissors lift\” (a hoisting device bolted to the floor and used to raise andlower employees to and from the roof areas) are devices typical of the machinery orequipment normally encountered in a manufacturing plant.\u00a0 They reflect workingconditions of a manufacturing rather than construction nature, regardless of the fact thatthe construction standards as well as the general industry standards contain provisionsgenerally regulating the hazard of a fall from elevated work surfaces.\u00a0 See SouthernPacific Transportation Co. v. Usery, 539 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied,434 U.S. 874 (1977); Southern Railway v. OSHRC, 539 F.2d 335 (4th Cir.), cert.denied, 429 U.S. 999 (1976) (the nature of an employer’s working conditions dependsnot only on the particular hazard presented at a certain work location but also on theoverall \”surroundings\” in which the employee customarily perform their assignedtasks).The fact that the modules or units Cardinal produces are manufactured in afactory setting is more significant than the fact that they will eventually be occupied asdwellings or residences.\u00a0 The construction standards as a whole indicate thatregardless of the type of building or structure involved the performance of constructionwork necessarily implies some direct and tangible connection or relationship with thephysical site or location of the structure.\u00a0 Thus, the construction standards containa number of provisions, which have no counterpart in the general industry standards,dealing with such matters as the preparation of building sites and the assembly orcompletion of structures or structural components on site.[[6]]\u00a0 In addition, section1926.13(c), a regulation promulgated under and interpreting section 107 of the ContractWork Hours and Safety Standards Act (\”Construction Safety Act\”), 40 U.S.C. ?333, which authorizes the Secretary to establish safety and health standards applicable tofederal construction contracts, recognizes a clear differentiation between the fabricationor assembly of construction materials and the performance of construction work at thesite.\u00a0 In pertinent part this regulation provides:A person who undertakes to perform a portion of a contract involving thefurnishing of supplies or materials will be considered a \”subcontractor\” . . .if the work in question . . . is to be performed:\u00a0 (1) Directly on or near theconstruction site, or (2) by the employer for the specific project on a customized basis.\u00a0 Thus, a supplier of materials which will become an integral part of theconstruction is a \”subcontractor\” if the supplier fabricates or assembles thegoods or materials in question specifically for the construction project. . . . If thegoods or materials in question are ordinarily sold to other customers from regularinventory, the supplier is not a \”subcontractor.\”\u00a0 Generally, thefurnishing of prestressed concrete beams and prestressed structural steel would beconsidered manufacturing; therefore a supplier of such materials would not be considered a\”subcontractor.\”\u00a0 An example of materials supplied \”for the specificproject on a customized basis\” as that phrase is used in this section would beventilating ducts, fabricated in a shop away from the construction job site andspecifically cut for the project according to design specifications.\u00a0 On the otherhand, if a contractor buys standardsize nails from a foundry, the foundry would not be acovered \”subcontractor.\”Since the Construction Safety Act has a similar purpose in providing safe and healthfulworking conditions for employees engaged in construction work, the scope of its coverageis relevant in resolving an analogous question of coverage under the Occupational Safetyand Health Act.\u00a0 See Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722(1947); Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Inc., 78 OSAHRC 48\/C13, 6 BNA OSHC 1702,1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,829 (No. 14801, 1978).\u00a0 Indeed, the scope of the ConstructionSafety Act is particularly persuasive here because the substantive safety and healthstandards promulgated under that statute and set forth in 29 C.F.R. Part 1926 are thesource for the occupational safety and health standards applicable to all employersengaged in construction work under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.\u00a0 29 C.F.R.? 1910.12(a).\u00a0 See 29 U.S.C. ? 653(b)(2) (standards issued pursuant to 40U.S.C. ? 333 are deemed occupational safety and health standards under the Act.) \u00a0When he adopted and extended the Construction Safety Act standards as OSHA standardsapplicable to all construction work, the Secretary defined \”work forconstruction\” by explicitly referring to the \”discussion of these terms in ?1926.13 of this title.\”[[7]]\u00a0 Section 1926.13is therefore pertinent to the extent that it differentiates between manufacturing andconstruction and explains the particular circumstances under which a manufacturing orfabrication operation could be considered construction work.[[8]]The record indicates that no single modular unit can by itself constitute ahabitable dwelling.\u00a0 It may require as many as 20 units to form a complete structureat the building site, where the units are taken by truck and placed on a pre-existingfoundation.\u00a0 The record does not show, nor does Cardinal contend, that its employeeseither transport modules to the site where they are to be installed or perform any finalassembly or installation on the site.\u00a0 Cardinal’s plant manager testified thatCardinal produces units for three basic types of occupancy –apartments, houses, andmotels–in a fixed and prescribed production sequence as summarized in Judge Salyers’decision.\u00a0 It does not appear, nor is there any contention, that Cardinal producesunits on a customized basis for particular projects.\u00a0 Applying the criteria set forthin section 1926.13(c), I conclude that the type of work in which Cardinal is engaged doesnot constitute construction within the meaning of section 1910.12(b).\u00a0 Cf. DravoCorp., 82 OSAHRC 30\/A2, 10 BNA OSHC 1651, 1657, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,076, p. 32,814(No. 14818, 1982) (a pipe shop associated with a shipyard which fabricates components suchas ladders, nozzles, and sewage holding tanks is a manufacturing operation not subject tothe Secretary’s shipbuilding standards).Finally, while I would not necessarily regard the Standard IndustrialClassification Manual as controlling, I believe that the majority errs in dismissingthe manual as having no relevance whatever.\u00a0 The manual assigns industry codes on thebasis of \”primary activity,\” determined by the \”principal product or groupof products produced or distributed, or services rendered.\”\u00a0 Id. at 12.\u00a0 It therefore directly addresses the question presented in this case, namely, theproper characterization of an employer engaged in the production of prefabricated housingunits.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Secretary relies on the codes assigned in the manual todistinguish construction from manufacturing employers for the purpose of determininginspection priorities. [[9]]\u00a0 See OSHA Instruction CPL 2.25F, SchedulingSystem for Programmed Inspections, Appendix B, 2 BNA Ref. File 21:9295, :9305-07, 3CCH ESHG ? 8671, pp. 8301-02.\u00a0 The manual is also widely used by other governmentagencies and by private industry for classification, compilation of statistics andinsurance purposes.\u00a0 I therefore believe it is relevant and does provide guidance inclassifying Cardinal’s business activities.For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision.FOOTNOTES:[[1]] Section 1910.12 provides in part:? 1910.12 Construction work.(a) Standards.\u00a0 The standards prescribed in Part 1926 of thischapter are adopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 of the Actand shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to every employment and place ofemployment of every employee engaged in construction work.* * *(b) Definition.\u00a0 For purposes of this section, \”construction work\”means work for construction, alteration, and\/or repair, including painting and decorating.\u00a0See discussion of these terms in ? 1926.13 of this title.[[2]] Paragraphs (b) of both regulations are nearly identical.\u00a0 Section 1926.1051(b)states:? 1926.1051 Effective dates (specific).* * *(b)(1) To the extent that the standards in this part [1926] apply to light residentialconstruction, their application is delayed until September 27, 1971, whereupon thestandards shall apply to contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety StandardsAct which are advertised on or after that date and to such contracts which may benegotiated when the negotiations commence on or after that date.(2) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term \”light residentialconstruction\” is limited to the construction\” of homes and apartments which donot exceed three stories in height, and which do not have an elevator.[[3]] We are unconvinced by the Secretary’s other arguments.\u00a0 OMB’s StandardIndustrial Classification Manual was never intended to interpret section 1910.12\”but was developed for use…for purposes of facilitating the collection, tabulation,presentation and analysis of data.\”\u00a0 Id. at p. 9.\u00a0 Although theCommission discussed whether violations of the general industry standards occurred in FleetwoodHomes and Prowler Travel Trailers, preemption by the construction industrystandards was not raised in those cases.[[4]] Our conclusion is consistent with those drawn by OSHA when it examinedthe question of what standards in Part 1910 are preempted by those in Part 1926.\u00a0OSHA has published an \”Identification of General Industry Safety and HealthStandards (29 C.F.R. Part 1910) Applicable to Construction Work,\” 44 Fed. Reg. 8577(1979), listing the standards in Part 1910 that apply to construction work.\u00a0 AlthoughOSHA identified sections 1910.23(b)(5) and 1910.132(b) and (c) as applicable, it did notlist sections 1910.23(c)(1) or 1910.132(a), the standards cited here.\u00a0 We intimate noopinion, of course, on whether OSHA’s statements on the applicability of other generalindustry standards are correct.[[1]] The Part 1926 counterparts of these standards are Subpart I,\”Tools–Hand and Power,\” 29 C.F.R. ?? 1926.300-05, including section 1926.304,\”Woodworking tools\”; Subpart J, \”Welding and Cutting\”; and Subpart K,\”Electrical,\” specifically sections 1926.400, \”General requirements,\”1926.401, \”Grounding and bonding,\” and 1926.402, \”Equipment installationand maintenance.\”[[2]] The performance of carpentry work is demonstrated by the fact thatCardinal’s employees cut lumber and other materials, which they use in assembling floors,walls, and roofs; the employees also install doors and windows.\u00a0 The only testimonypertaining to plumbing work is the compliance office’s mention of bathroom facilities andkitchens and the only actual reference to electrical wiring appears in a statement byCardinal’s counsel at the hearing that Cardinal installs electrical circuits in eachmodular unit.\u00a0 Since the units are intended for final assembly at the site where theywill be used, it would appear that the units leave Cardinal’s facility with all interiorwiring and plumbing completed. Part 1910 contains no standards expressly governing work on roofs. \u00a0Compare section 1926.451(u)(3) (sloped roofs), section 1926.500(b) (roof openings) andsection 1926.500(g) (low-pitched roofs).\u00a0 However, it is apparent on the record herethat the assembly of the roof portion of the modules involves nothing more than basiccarpentry and labor skills and, with the possible exception of felt and shingles,materials similar to those used in fabricating other portions of the module structure.\u00a0 Therefore, the fact that the modules include a finished roof surface is not initself a distinction sufficient to justify applying the construction standards rather thangeneral industry standards to Cardinal’s operation.[[3]] The majority correctly notes that jobs which in themselves do notconstitute construction work may nevertheless justify application of the constructionstandard if they are directly and integrally related to the performance of constructionwork.\u00a0 See United Geophysical Corp., 81 OSAHRC 77\/D6, 9 BNA OSHC 2117,2121, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,579, p. 31,906 (No .78-6265, 1981), aff’d without publishedopinion, 683 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1982).\u00a0 However, the converse is also true.\u00a0Jobs that could be regarded as construction type work are not controlled by theconstruction standards when they are performed solely as part of a nonconstructionoperation.\u00a0 Royal Logging Co., 79 OSAHRC 84\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1744, 1979 CCH OSHD? 23,914 (No. 15169, 1979), aff’d, 645 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1981).[[4]] The majority concludes that the type of work performed by Cardinalfalls within the definition of \”light residential construction\” set forth insections 1910.17(b) and 1926.1051(b).\u00a0 However, the two provisions pertaining to\”light residential construction\” on which the majority relies simply referto\”construction\” without defining that term or otherwise giving an indication ofits meaning in the context in which it is used.\u00a0 It is even questionable whether themodular units Cardinal produces can appropriately be characterized as \”lightresidential\” as the majority implies.\u00a0 Cardinal’s plant engineer testified thatthe units it builds are primarily used in apartments and motels and occasionally houses.\u00a0 See the discussion in the text infra.\u00a0 Motels would not appearto constitute a \”light residential\” form of housing as that phrase is defined atsections 1910.17(b)(2) and 1926.1051(b)(2).[[5]] The majority’s reference to construction work performed withinpre-existing structures is inapposite.\u00a0 The question in this case is not whethercertain construction work may be performed indoors or inside a completed structure butrather whether a facility that merely assembles components of a housing unit without anyconnection to the site of their eventual erection and use is a construction workplace.\u00a0 Arguably, Cardinal would be engaged in construction work if it were to make somealteration or repair of its plant facility.\u00a0 See Rochester Prod. Div.,General Motors Corp., 85 OSAHRC ____, 12 BNA OSHC 1324, 1985 CCH OSHD ? 27,257 (No.80-5439, 1985)(construction standards cited for trench dug in the floor of a manufacturingplant for the installation of a trough to collect oil from machinery).\u00a0 That,however, is not the issue before us here.[[6]] For example, Subpart 0 (sections 1926.600-.606), entitled \”Motor Vehicles,Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations,\” imposes requirements for vehicles andother equipment used in site preparation, such as dump trucks (section 1926.601),earthmoving and other excavation equipment (section 1926.602), and pile driving equipment(section 1926.603).\u00a0 Other standards involving site preparation include theprovisions at section 1926.602(a)(3) pertaining to access roadways and grades; section1926.604 governing site clearing; and Subpart P, entitled \”Excavations, Trenching,and Shoring,\” which imposes requirements for sloping and shoring and protectingemployees from other hazards present at trenches and excavations.\u00a0 The erection ofstructures on site is governed by such standards as those in Subpart Q, \”Concrete,Concrete Forms, and Shoring\”; Subpart R \”Steel Erection\”; and Subpart S,\”Tunnels and Shafts, Caissons, Cofferdams, and Compressed Air.\”[[7]] See note 1 of the majority opinion.\u00a0 Although the Secretarydid not adopt section 1926.13 under the OSH Act, he expressly referred to section 1926.13for the definition of the term \”construction,\” and plainly considered thatregulation relevant for the purpose of determining what constitutes construction workunder the OSH Act.\u00a0 The Secretary declined to adopt section 1926.13 and other rulesinterpreting the Construction Safety Act because they included a restriction on the classof employers subject to the Construction Safety Act.\u00a0 Since the OSH Act applies toall employees engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce, the Secretary concludedthat the limitation of the Construction Safety Act to \”contractors andsubcontractors\” would be inappropriate under the OSH Act.\u00a0 Thus, the Secretarystated that \”the incorporation by reference of Part 1926 in ? 1910.12 is notintended to include references to interpretative rules having relevance to the applicationof the Construction Safety Act but having no relevance to the application of theOccupational Safety and Health Act.\”\u00a0 See New England Telephone &Telegraph Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1838, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,267 (No. 9627, 1976), rev’don other grounds, 589 F.2d 81 (1st Cir. 1978); Bechtel Power Corp., 76OSAHRC 38\/E2, 4 BNA OSHC 1005, 1975-76 CCH OSHD ? 20,503 (No. 5063, 1976), aff’d,548 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1977).[[8]] Other statutes relating to federally financed or assisted construction are alsorelevant to the issue before the Commission here. Section 1926.13(a) notes that the term\”construction . . . used in section 107 of the [Construction Safety] Act [is] alsoused in section 1 of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a), providing minimum wageprotection on Federal construction contracts, and section 1 of the Miller Act (40 U.S.C.270a), providing performance and payment bond protection on Federal constructioncontracts.\”\u00a0 That section goes on to express the Secretary’s determination that\”[t]he use of the same or identical terms in these statutes which apply concurrentlywith section 107 of the [Construction Safety] Act have considerable precedential value inascertaining the coverage of section 107.\”Regulations for the implementation of labor standards under the Davis-BaconAct and related statutes recognize the same distinction between construction andmanufacturing expressed in section 1926.13(c).\u00a0 Thus, 29 C.F.R. ? 5.2(i) defines theterms \”building\” and \”work\” to include \”construction activity asdistinguished from manufacturing, furnishing of materials, or servicing and maintenancework.\”\u00a0 Section 5.2(j) defines \”construction\” as work performed\”on a particular building\” or \”at the site thereof, including\”installation on the site of the work of items fabricated off-site\” and the\”manufacturing or furnishing of materials, articles, supplies or equipment on thesite of the building or work . . . . \” (emphasis added).\u00a0 Under section5.2(1)(1) \”site of the work\” is expressly limited to \”the physical place orplaces where the construction called for in the contract will remain when work on it hasbeen completed\” and to \”other adjacent or nearby property . . . which canreasonably be said to be included in the ‘site.’\” \”Fabrication plants\” inparticular \”are part of the ‘site of the work’ provided they are dedicatedexclusively, or nearly so, to the performance of the contract or project, and are solocated in proximity to the actual construction location that it would be reasonable toinclude them.\”[[9]] Thus, employers in manufacturing industries as designated by their SICcodes are scheduled for inspection according to the injury rate for each industry havingan injury rate greater than the national average.\u00a0 See Phoenix Forging Co.,85 OSAHRC ___, 12 BNA OSHC 1317, 1985 CCH OSHD ? 27,256 (No. 82-398, 1985). \u00a0Employers in construction industries are distinguished from those in manufacturing becauseall construction industries have an injury rate in excess of the national average and thusqualify for inspection under the Secretary’s program to concentrate inspections in themost hazardous industries.”