Opinion ID: 154137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Service Contract

Text: 12 Joy relies on the agency definition of independent contractor and argues that it is not an independent contractor because it does not have a contract to perform services with Somerset. Joy argues that the only contracts between Somerset and Joy were for the sale of goods. MSHA asserts that the language in the regulation referring to contracts to perform services is not limited to specific service contracts but encompasses services performed incidental to a contract of sale. MSHA has concluded that a party is an independent contractor within the meaning of section 3(d) if it performs significant services, under contract or otherwise, on mine property. Because we find that neither Congress nor MSHA's definition has spoken to the precise question of whether a service contract is required, we defer to MSHA's reasonable interpretation that such a contract is not required. 13 Whatever clarity exists from the agency's definition of independent contractor, standing alone, is rendered ambiguous when the definition is read in conjunction with the language, history, and purpose of the statutory provision it is meant to implement. The statutory language in section 3(d) of the Mine Act is silent on the meaning to be accorded to the term independent contractor in the phrase independent contractor performing services ... at [a] mine. The statute itself neither mandates nor precludes the agency's interpretation that a specific service contract is not required. 14 In addition, the legislative history suggests that a specific contractual relationship is not required for independent contractor status. A Senate report accompanying the Mine Act, which amended the definition of operator to include the independent contractor language, states that Congress intended to include within the act those who are engaged in construction at [a] mine, or who may be, under contract or otherwise, engaged in the extraction process for the benefit of the owner or lessee of the property. S.Rep. No. 95-181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 14, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3401, 3414 (emphasis added) (hereinafter Senate Report). FMSHRC, in applying the statute, has consistently stated that [o]ur focus is on the actual relationships between the parties, and is not confined to the terms of their contracts. Joy Technologies, Inc., 17 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1306 (citing Bulk Transp. Servs., Inc., 13 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 1358, n.2 (1991)). 15 Finally, an interpretation of independent contractor that excludes all persons or businesses because they do not have a service contract would be at odds with the purpose of the Mine Act. We are mindful of the rule that  'a regulation must be interpreted so as to harmonize with and further and not to conflict with the objective of the statute it implements.'  Emery Mining Corp., 744 F.2d at 1414 (quoting Trustees of Ind. Univ. v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 88, 618 F.2d 736, 739 (1980)). Under Joy's interpretation, a party performing services at a mine could avoid the requirements of the Act by not setting forth the terms of its relationship with the mine in a contract. Such an interpretation would produce a result which fails to protect the safety and health of the nation's miners, the primary purpose of the Mine Act. We refuse to give effect to an interpretation of a regulation which is not reasonable and consistent with the statute that the regulation is meant to implement. United Telecommunications, Inc, 589 F.2d at 1390. Joy's interpretation, although apparently drawn from the language of MSHA's own regulation, would do just that. Thus, we conclude that in light of the language, history and purpose of the Mine Act, a service contract is not required for independent contractor status under section 3(d).