Opinion ID: 2682690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Appeal

Text: Shamokin also challenges the ALJ’s decision to exclude evidence of MSHA’s non-assertion of jurisdiction over plants that Shamokin claims are its competitors. Shamokin contends that the evidence would have showed an inconsistent position regarding MSHA’s exercise of jurisdiction over carbon products plants such as Shamokin’s, which could call into question the propriety of the Secretary’s assertion of jurisdiction here. Shamokin submits that a number of memoranda are relevant to the question of whether MSHA has consistently interpreted the statute to allow for jurisdiction over the further processing of non-raw coal. In its brief, Shamokin discusses only the operations of the Keystone Filler & Manufacturing plant, highlighting a June 22, 2004 memorandum as representative, so that is the plant and memorandum we will address. According to this memorandum, written by Counsel for Standards, Mine Safety and Health, to a District Manager of MSHA, Keystone’s facility was not engaged in the “work of preparing the coal” because, once the coal arrives at this facility, it is already fully prepared and ready to be used by Keystone as a chemical compound ingredient in the manufacture of saleable products for the rubber, plastics, and steel products industries. . . . Other ingredients are added to it such as coke, petroleum laced coke and graphite. Any oversized pieces are crushed at Keystone, but this crushing is incidental to the manufacturing process. As a consumer of fully processed coal 17 sold in the open market, Keystone’s work constitutes manufacturing rather than mining, and as such, not subject to MSHA jurisdiction. . . . [P]reparation ends when the coal is ready for use. App. at A184. We agree that the consistency of an agency’s application of a statute might be relevant. See, e.g., Westar Energy, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 473 F.3d 1239, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“The Order under review is arbitrary and capricious in that it provides no basis in fact or in logic for the Commission’s refusal to treat Westar as it had treated KCPL.”). However, this memorandum is not relevant. Keystone was engaged in manufacturing, not coal processing. Shamokin argued unsuccessfully to the Mine Commission that it, like Keystone, was mainly engaged in the manufacture of carbon-based products for the steel, rubber, and plastics industries. The Mine Commission determined this assertion was factually without merit, as inspectors found no mixing of coal with non-coal materials at the plant, and the records supplied by Shamokin confirmed that it sold only a few tons of products containing no coal or coal mixtures. As such, Shamokin’s comparison to Keystone is not apt, as Shamokin was mainly engaged in coal processing, not manufacturing of other products using coal. Furthermore, as the Mine Commission pointed out, better evidence on the consistency of MSHA’s jurisdictional decisions is the fact that the Secretary through MSHA has asserted jurisdiction over Shamokin from 1977 to 2009 without a change in its operations when the new owners 18 assumed the helm. Indeed, this demonstrates that the Secretary has consistently interpreted the statute. We also agree with the ALJ’s assessment that the introduction of this evidence could have opened up a stream of requests for comparisons to facilities all around the country, causing an unnecessary delay in the proceedings to address collateral matters. Given the limited probative value of the evidence, and the potential it had to unnecessarily delay the hearing, we affirm the Mine Commission’s decision to exclude the evidence of MSHA’s non-assertion of jurisdiction over other facilities. We find that the agency’s decision was not an abuse of discretion. Cf. Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 922 F.2d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978) (“If judicial self-restraint is ever desirable, it is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal.”).