that the DOL has determined have no retail concept. Among the enumerated establishments are businesses engaged in the maintenance of loft buildings or office buildings, air-conditioning and heating systems contractors, elevator repair businesses, painting contractors, plumbing contractors, and roofing contractors. 29 C.F.R. § 779.317. Plaintiffs contend that, because CCS is engaged in the maintenance of office buildings, and provides services akin to those of the various listed contractors, it lacks a retail concept. Some courts have refused to defer to § 779.317 where there is no discernable rational basis for the Secretary of Labor’s determination that a particular type of business lacks a retail concept. See Reich v. Cruises Only, Inc., 1997 WL 1507504, at *5 (M.D.Fla. June 5, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Refrigeration School, Inc., 968
holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that travel agency specializing in cruise vacations possessed a retail concept despite the fact that  779317 lists travel agencies as lacking a retail concept concluding that the regulation appeared to be arbitrary and without any rational basis explained in the regulation holding that there was no rational basis for  779317s distinction that sjchools except schools for mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children lack a retail concept holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation