C.F.R. » Title 30 » CHAPTER I—MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER G—FILING AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS › PART 45—INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

30 C.F.R. § 45.2

Definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part:

(a) Act means the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Pub. L. 91-173, as amended by Pub. L. 95-164;

(b) District Manager means the District Manager of the Mine Safety and Health Administration District in which the independent contractor is located;

(c) Independent contractor means any person, partnership, corporation, subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association or other organization that contracts to perform services or construction at a mine; and,

(d) Production-operator means any owner, lessee, or other person who operates, controls or supervises a coal or other mine.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Joy Tech., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 99 F.3d 991 (10th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joy Tech., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 99 F.3d 991 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “” 30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c). II. Procedural History On April 6, 1992, Joy Technologies delivered a new continuous miner to the Sanborn Creek Mine, operated by Somerset Mining Company (Somerset) in Gunnison County, Colorado.”
Otis Elevator Co. v. Sec'y of Labor & Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 921 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c) (emphasis added). If deference under Chevron were appropriate, we would owe that deference to the Secretary’s interpretation, not the Commission’s.”
United Energy Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Admin. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 35 F.3d 971 (4th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c) (1993). For the reasons that follow, we find that United Energy qualifies as an “independent contractor” performing services at a “coal or other mine.”
Ames Constr., Inc. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 676 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “at 152 ; see 30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (d) (definition of “production-operator”).”
W. Oilfields Supply Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 946 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” See 30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c). Rain for Rent maintains that, “[b]y its tense, ‘performing services’ .”
Old Dominion Power Co. v. Donovan, 772 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1985). “30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c) (1984). Moreover, because MSHA’s position contradicts its earlier interpretation of § 3(d) as expressed in its proposed regulations, it is not entitled to the deference usually given by this Court to agency interpretations of the statutes they are…”
D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, Mine Saf. & Health Admin., 152 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 1998). “Under this construction, the regulation would create two mutually exclusive categories of operators-(1) owners, lessees, and other persons who are not independent contractors (all of whom are known as "production-operators"), see 30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (d); and (2) designated…”
— 30 C.F.R. § 45.2(c) — 1 case
Otis Elevator Co. v. Sec'y of Labor & Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 921 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “30 C.F.R. § 45.2 (c) (emphasis added). If deference under Chevron were appropriate, we would owe that deference to the Secretary’s interpretation, not the Commission’s.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.