Shamokin Filler Co. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission, 772 F.3d 330

Shamokin Filler Company operates a coal preparation facility in Shamokin, PA regulated by MSHA since 1977; after a 2009 ownership change, new owners challenged MSHA jurisdiction arguing OSHA should oversee it.
Secretary of Labor, ALJ, and Mine Commission all held that MSHA jurisdiction was proper because Shamokin’s carbon plant engages in the work of preparing coal under the Mine Act.
Court adopts a functional analysis to determine jurisdiction, focusing on how the coal is used and processed at Shamokin (storage, sizing, drying, loading).
Shamokin argued it purchases coal already processed and therefore is not engaged in the work of preparing coal; it relied on statutory language, a defunct Bureau of Mines definition, and various cases.
The Mine Commission excluded evidence of MSHA’s non‑assertion of jurisdiction over other facilities as irrelevant or prejudicial; the appellate court affirmed this evidentiary ruling.
The court ultimately denies Shamokin’s petition for review, upholding MSHA jurisdiction and the ALJ’s evidentiary ruling as proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shamokin is within the work of preparing coal under 802(i)	Shamokin argues it buys processed coal and thus is not preparing coal.	MSHA contends the statute has broad, functional scope.	Shamokin is engaged; MSHA jurisdiction proper.
Whether the phrase 'and such other work of preparing such coal' limits coverage	Phrase limits to work usually done by the coal mine operator.	No limitation; text supports broad scope.	No limiting interpretation; jurisdiction proper.
Whether evidence of MSHA’s non‑assertion over other facilities was admissible	Such evidence shows inconsistent MSHA application.	Evidence is limited, potentially prejudicial and not probative of the case.	Exclusion not an abuse of discretion.
Whether the case-by-case approach can be overridden by a comparative facility analysis	Comparative facilities should inform jurisdiction.	Jurisdiction determined by statute; comparative analysis is improper.	Jurisdiction determined by statute; no widespread comparative analysis required.

Pa. Elec. Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 969 F.2d 1501 (3d Cir. 1992) (functional analysis guiding Mine Act coverage)
RNS Servs., Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin., 115 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1997) (loading/receiving end-use crystallizes Mine Act jurisdiction)
Dowd v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 846 F.2d 193 (3d Cir. 1988) (cites coal preparation facility context; not controlling for all future cases)
Hanna v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Progs., U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 860 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1988) (discussion on whether steps after initial processing constitute preparation)
Stroh v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Progs., 810 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1987) (early context for functional approach to preparation)