FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

P u r s u an tt o F e d
. R
. Ap p . P
. 4 3 ( c ) , M i c h a e l J. A s tr u e i s s u b s t i tu t e d f o r h i s p r e d e c e s s o r , Jo * Anne B . Ba

rnhar t, as Commis sioner of the Social Security Administration. [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ __ N o. 06- 1525 5

____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00065 -CV -H S-S UNITED STAT ES STEEL CORPORATION, U. S. ST EE L M IN IN G C OMP AN Y, LL C, Pl ai nt iff s– App el la nt s,
ve rs us MIC HAEL J. ASTRUE, * Co m m iss ion er of S oc ia l S ec ur ity

A dm ini str at ion , Defen da nt–Ap pe ll ee, MIC HAEL H. HOLLAN D, ELLIOT A . SEGAL, W ILLIAM P. HOBGOOD, et al ., In te rv en or s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ( A ug us t 15, 200 7)Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , ** sitti ng by desig nation . 2 Before DU BIN A and BLA CK, Circuit Judges, and RE ST AN I, Judge. ** RE ST AN I, Judge: United States S teel Corporation (“ US S”) and its subs idiary , U nited States Steel Mi nin g C om

pa ny ( “ U SS M” ) (c oll ec tiv el y “ A ppe llants ”) , br ough t this a ct iona ga ins t the Com m issio ner of the Socia l Security Adm inistration (“ SSA ”), under the Coal In dustry Re tir ee H ea lthBe ne fi t A ct of 199 2, 26 U
. S. C. §§ 97 01–0 8, 971 1–12 , 9721 –22 ( “ Co al A ct ”) , c ha lle ngi ng the S SA ’ s a ssi gnm en t of va ri ous Unite d M ine W orke rs of

A m er ic a (“ U MWA ”) r et ir ee s to the m fo r he al th c ar e pr em ium pa ym en ts. The di st ric t co ur t g r a n te d s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Ap pe ll an ts on all cla im s. On ap pe al , Appe llants a rg ue tha t the S SAim pr ope rl y w ith he ld r eque ste d e ar nin gs
re co rd s f or c er ta in m ine rs , inc or

re ct ly f ound tha t anothe r re spon sib le c oa l op er at or
w as not “ in b usi ne ss” f

or pur pose s of the Co al A ct , inc or

re ct ly appl ie d ar eb utt ab le pr es um pti on i n ass igning thr ee m ine rs to A ppe llants , a nd i m pr ope rl y a ssi gne d to Ap p el l an t s m i n er s wh o h ad b ec o m e u n as s i g n ed fo l l o wi n g t h e S up re m e C o u rt ’s hol din g inE as te rnE nte rp ri se s v. Apf el , 524 U
. S. 498 (1 99 8)
. W e A FF IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r w ithr es pe ct to the r eque st fo r earn ing s re co rd s, the a ssi gnm en t of tw o of the thr ee m ine rs to A ppe llants ba se d upon ar eb utt ab le pr es um pti on, a nd the3

a s s i g n m en to f min er s wh o b ec ame u n as s i g n ed fo l l o wi n g Ea s t er n En t er p ri s es . We RE VE RSE the district court’ s judgm ent upho lding the assignm ent of o ne of t he three
m ine rs , L ee Jon es , to A ppe llants ba se d up on a r eb utt ab le pr es um

ption, a nd w ith
re spe ct to el ev enof

the f if te enm ine rs a ssi gne d to Appe ll an ts ba se d up on a f ind ing that another responsib le coal operator w as not “ in bus iness” for purposes of the Coal A ct . W e RE MA

N D w ithr es pe ct

to fo ur of the f if te enm iners w hose e m

plo ym en t
w iththe oth er

r es pons ibl e co al ope ra tor is co nte ste d. BACKGRO UND I. The C oal Act T he Co al A ct

of 199 2 w as “ the c ulm ina tio n of alon g hist or y

inv olv ing bit um ino us c oa l c om

pa nie s . . . , the U nit ed

Mi ne W orke rs of

A m er ic a . . . , a nd
co lle ct ive ba rg ai nin g agr ee m en ts betw ee n them
. ” P itt sto n C o. v. U nit ed S ta te s, 368 F. 3d 385, 390 (4 th Ci r. 2004 ). In 1947 , the Bi tum ino us Coa l Op er at or s’ A sso ci at ion (“ BC O A ”) a nd the U MWA ne got ia te d th e fi rs t N at ion al Bi tu m in ous Co al W ag e Agre em ent (“

NBC W A” ), crea ting a trust fund to provid e pension p lans and m edical be ne fi ts t o r et ir ed

c oa l m ine rs a nd the ir

f am ili es . Si dne y

Co al Co
. v. S SA , 427 F
. 3d 336, 338 ( 6thCi r. 20 05 ). I n 19 50, the tr ust f und be cam e a m

ult i- em plo y er tr ust
w hic h w as “ funde d by

c oa l op er at or s w ithr oy alti es pa id i n pr opor tio n to the operators’ coal production .” Pittston, 3 6 8 F. 3 d at 390. T he trust did n ot provid e a4

co ns is te nt lev el of b en efi ts . Sid ne y , 42 7 F .3d at 3 38
. As a resu lt , in 19 74 , th e UMWA an d t he BCOA en te red in to an ot he r NBCWA,
re pla ci ng the pr ior

tr ust f und w ithf

our se pa ra te tr

ust s w hic h were “ fu nd ed by
ro y al tie s onc oa l pr oduc tio n a nd p re m ium s ba se d on em plo y ee hour s. ” P itt sto n, 368 F. 3d a t 39 1. T he 197 4 N BC W A w as “ the f ir st a gr ee m en t be tw ee n the U MWA a nd the BCO A to expressly

ref erence health benefits for re tirees. ” E . E nters., 5 2 4 U. S. at 509
. T he tr

ust funds, how ev er , be ga n to ex pe ri en ce f inanc ia l di ff

ic ult ie s and thus, in 197 8, another agre em ent was m ade “ assign[ing ] responsibi lity to sign atory

coal op erat or s fo r th e h eal th ca r e o f al l o f th ei r own cu rren t an d fo rm er em pl oyees.” Pi tts ton , 368 F
. 3d a t 39 1. D es pi te suc h a ct ion s, the tr ust f unds c ont inu ed

to
ex pe ri en ce f

inanc ia l di ff

ic ult ie s and w er e m odi fi ed a ga in i n 19 88. I d. In 1 9 9 2 , C o n g re s s en ac t ed t h e C o al Ac tt o p r e s er v e b en ef i t s fo r U M WA retiree s. E . E nters., 524 U. S. at 5 11–1 4. S pecifically , the C oal Act crea ted the United Mine W orkers of A m erica Com bined Benefit Fu n d (“Com bined Fund ”), which pr ovi de d li fe tim e he al th b en ef its to re tir ee s an d th ei r de pe nde nts . I d. a t 51 4. T he Co m bin ed F und is f inanc ed by a nnua l pr em ium s asse sse d a ga ins t c oa l op er at or s w ho ha d si gne d “ an y

N BC W A or

a ny oth er ag re em en t re qui ri ng c ontri but ion s to the 195 0
or 197 4 B en ef

it Pl an s. ” I d. ( ci tin g 26 U
. S. C. § 97 01( b) (1 ), ( 3) , § 97 01( c) (1 ))
. “ T he
am ount ow ed

in pr em ium s de pe nde d onthe num be r of r et ir ee s and d ep en de nts f or5

w hic h e ac h si gna tor

y ope ra tor w as r es pons ibl e. ” S idn ey , 427 F
. 3d a t 33 9 ( ci tin g 26 U
. S. C. § 97 04( a) (1 )– (3 ))
. A ny of the se sig na tor

y co al ope ra tor s “ w ho ‘ co nduc ts o r derives revenue fr om

any busin ess activity , w hether o r no t in the coal indust ry ,’ m ay be liable for those prem ium s.” E. Enter s., 524 U.S . a t 5 1 4 (citing 26 U.S .C. §§ 9 706( a) , 970 1( c) (7 ))
. I f “ a sig na to ry is no l onge r inv olv ed

in an y bus ine ss
ac tiv ity , pr em ium s m ay

be le vie d aga ins t ‘ re la te d per son[ s] , ’ inc lud ing suc ce sso rs in interest and busi nesses or corporations un der com m on control.” Id. (citing 26 U.S .C. §§ 97 06(a), 9701 (c)( 2)(A )). T he A ct ins tr uc ts the S SAto as sig n reti rees to ope ra tor s us ing the f oll ow ing fo rm ula : 1) to the ope ra tor

w hic h “ w as asig na tor

y to the 197 8 c oa l w ag e ag re em en t or any subsequ en t co al w age agree m ent,” and which “ wa s the m ost recent signatory operator to em

ploythe coal industry

retire e . . . f

or at least tw o y ears;” 2) if una ssi gna

ble und er the f ir st s te p, the n to the ope ra tor w hic h “ w as a si gn at or y to th e 19 78 co al wag e ag reem en t or an y su bs eq ue nt co al wage ag reem en t,” and which “ wa s the m ost rece nt signato ry operator to em ploy the coal indust ry

retire e in the c oa l i ndus tr

y ;” a nd 3) if una ssi gna

ble und er the f ir st tw o s te ps, the n “ to the sig na tor y ope ra tor
w hic h e m plo y ed the c oa l i nd ustry

r et ir ee in the c oa l i ndus tr y f or alon ge r pe ri od o fThe Supreme Court identified the 1974 NB CW A as the f irst coal wa g e agree ment 1 promising life time benef

its to m iners. E. Enter s., 524 U.S. at 509, 530, 535.

6 tim e than any

other signatory

operator prior to the eff ective date of the 197 8 coal wag e ag reem en t.” 2 6 U.S.C. § 97 06 (a). If a n e lig ibl e be ne fi ci ar

y c an not be a ssi gne d un de r an y

of t he se st ep s, the beneficiary

is consid ered “ unassig ned,” and his benefits are funded throug h asset tr an sfers fro m the 195 0 N at ion al Bi tum ino us C oa l W ag e A gr ee m en t F und or the Abandoned Mine Land Reclam ation Fund
. Sidney , 427 F. 3d at 340 (citing 26 U.S .C. § 97 05( a) –( b) ). I f the a sse t transf er s are ins uf

fi ci en t, the n th e un as si gned m ine rs ’ be ne fi ts are f

unde d th oughpre m ium s a sse sse d a ga ins t a ll as sig ne d op er at or s. 26 U. S. C. §§ 97 04(d). II. The S upre m e C ourt’ s Dec ision in Eastern Ente rprises InE as te rnE nte rp ri se s, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the thi rd ste p of § 97 06,
as sig nin g r et ir ee s to ope ra tor s w hic h had s ign ed w ag e ag re em en ts p ri or

to 1974 but ha d no t si gne d th e 1974 NBCWA or asub se que nt c oa l w ag e ag re em en t pr om isi ng lif et im e be ne fi ts, w as unc onst itu tio na l. E
. E nte rs . , 524 U
. S. at 530, 537. A m aj or ity 1 of the Court c o n cl u d ed that such assig nm ents wer e unconstit ution al because they
re tr oa ct ive ly

r equir ed pr em ium pa ym en ts f

ro m co al ope ra tor s that ha d not si gne d a ny agreem ents pr om ising lifetim e benefits for their em ploy ees, and because s uchUnless otherw ise noted, the fa cts here are taken f rom the memora

ndum of dec ision of the 2 d i s t r i c tc o u rt . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s S t e e l C o r

p . v . B ar n h art , N o . 0 4
- 0 0 6 5 , 2 0 0 6 U
. S
. D i s t . LE X IS 94798, at *16–*59 (N.D . Ala. June 20, 2006). The pa rties do not appea

r to contest these fac ts. 7 operators did not have sufficient notice that lifetim e benefits would be required later. Id
. a t 535– 36. A plura lity of the c ourt c onc lud ed

tha t su cha ssi gnm en ts am ount ed to
anunc onst itu tio na l t ak ing be ca use the y “ fo rc ed [ suc h op er at or s] to be ar the e xpe nse of li fe tim e he al th b en ef

its f or m ine rs ba se d on [the ir ] ac tiv iti es de ca de s be fo re tho se be ne fit s wer e p ro m is ed .” Id . at 5 37
. A ft er the S upr em e Court’ s de ci sio n, the S SAinv al ida te d a ll as sig nm en ts t o
c o a l o p e r a t o r s t h a th a dn o ts i g n e dt h e 1 9 7 4 NB C WA o r al a t e r a g r e e men t . S i d n e y, 427 F. 3 d at 341. T he SSAthen assign ed those m iners to operators “ that had
em ploy ed the retire d m iners for the long est period and to whom it wa s constit ution al to m ak e as sig nm en ts unde r § 97 06, i. e. , onl y tho se c oa l op er at or s th at ha d si gne d a 1974 N BC W A or

la te r ag re em en t and tha t r em ai ne d inbus ine ss. ” I d. III. Fact ual & P rocedu ral Back ground 2 T he c ur re nt c as e ar ise s fromva ri ous as sig nm en ts o f m ine rs to A ppe llants by th e SSA. 1993 A ssi gnm en ts On Se ptem

ber 28 and Oc tober 7, 8, 15, 16, and 18, 1993, SSAservice c enters sent letters to Appellants assign ing m iners to them under the Coal Ac t . Ea ch letter8

stated that operators had thirty day s upon rece ipt of the letter to either re quest further inform ation about th e assigned m iners or to request a re view. T he letters also stated tha t i f anope ra tor

r eque ste d f

urthe r inf orm at ionabout

the m ine rs , it

w oul d have thi rty da y s fr om rece ip t o f th os e rec or ds to req ue st a rev ie w of t he ass ig nm en t. O n O ct obe r 8, 199 3, D ar

re ll L ill y ( “ L ill y ”) , the hum anr es our ce s m an ag er f or U SS M, se nt l et te rs to the S SAr eque sti ng the e ar nin gs r eco rd s of, a nd the ba sis of
as sig nm en ts f

or , m ine rs as sig ne d on Se pte m be r 28th. O n O ct obe r 26, 199 3, L ill y se nt sim ilar le tte rs to the S SA re que sti ng sim ilar inf orm at ion co nc er

nin g th e O ct obe r 7th
an d 8th a ssi gnm en ts. T he le tte rs f ro m L ill y w er e w ri tte n onUSSM le tte rh ea d a nd ind ic at ed tha t U SS M w as asub sid ia ry of U SS , the n r ef

er re d to as U SX , but

did not
m en tio n a ny

spe ci fi c m ine rs or as sig nm en ts m ad e to U SS or U SS M. I n r es pons e, in le tte rs da te d F eb ru ar

y 7, 23, a nd 28, an d M ar ch1 and 2 , 199 4, the S SAse nt L ill y the
earn in gs reco rd s fo r va rio us m in ers ass ig ne d t o Ap pe ll an ts . O n M ar ch 15 , 1 994, L ill y se nt l et te rs to the S SAsta tin g th at “ w e ar e as kin g y ou to review the assignm ent per the attached list. W e have not rece ived an Item ized St at em en t of

E ar nin gs f or the se ind ivi dua ls. T he re fo re , w e m ust dis ag re e w iththe assignm ent that U. S. Steel Mining Co. is the respon sibili ty (sic) op erator. ” U. S. Steel Co rp . , 200 6 U
. S. D ist
. L E X IS 947 98, a t *1 9. A lth oughth e le tt ers r ef er en ce d on ly U SS M, the li st a tta ch ed

to ea chle tte r inc lud ed

m ine rs a ssi gne d to both U SS a nd9

US SM. In re spon se, in letter s dated March 31, and April 13 and 15, 1994, the SSA
se nt Lil ly the req ue st edearn in gs reco rd s an d b as is of a ss ig nm en t. T he le tter da ted M ar ch31, 199 4, how ev er , a lso sta te d th at the S SAha d no t
en cl ose d th e earn ing s r ec or ds f or ei ght pa rt ic ular m ine rs but tha t i t w oul d se nd the i n f o rm a t i o n l a t e r . T h e r e c o r d s w e r e n o ts e n t . Ap p e l l a n t s n o ws e e kt h e r e c o r d s f or fi ve of the e igh t m ine rs li ste d th at w er e as sig ne d to U SS on O ct obe r 18, 199 3. 1995 A ssi gnm en ts O n Ju ne 30 and S ep te m be r 20, 199 5, the S SAse nt n oti ces to Appe llants
as sig nin g th em ad dit ion al m ine rs . O n Se pte m be r 29, 199 5, L ill y

se nt a le tte r to the SSArequesting the earnings records of the m iners assigned to US SM on Septem ber 20th. O n N ove m

be r 20, 199 5, the S SAa cknow le dge d r ec ei pt o f the r eque st. L ill y repl ied, stating that he had intend ed to request the earnings records for m iners
as sig ne d to U SS a nd U SSM. T he S SAr es pond ed by se ndi ng U SS the r ec or ds f or
m ine rs a ssi gne d to it

in June , ra the r than Se pte m be r, 1995
. A ppe llants now se ek the
co rrec t re co rd s fr om

th e SSA. 1998 –200 1 A ssi gnm en ts T he S SAa ga in i ssu ed

not ic es in 1998, 199 9, 200 0, a nd 2 001, a ssi gni ng additio nal m iners to Appellants. T he as s i g n m en t s included m iners who had been ini tia lly a ssi gne d to ope ra tor s th at ha d not sig ne d th e 1974 N BC W A or a nyTh e Tr us te e s o f t

he UM WA i nte rv e ne d a s p art y de fe nd ants wi th r e sp e c t to Ap pe lla nts ’ 3 c ha lle ng e of

the a ssi g nme nt o f m ine rs a ff e c te d b y Ea ste rn En te rp ri se s. 1 0 subs eque nt c oa l w ag e ag re em en ts, a nd m iner s w ho h ad be ene m plo y ed lon ge r by Bl ac k D ia m ond Co al Co m pa ny (“ Bl ac k D ia m ond” ) than by Appe llants . Appe llants
re que ste d revie w of

se ve nty -e igh t of

the se a ssi gnm en ts. T he S SAr ev ie w ed the
as sig nm en ts and iss ue d a fi na l de ci sio n ru lin g tha t the Appe llants w er e re spon sib le fo r som e, but

not a ll, of the m ine rs . Procedural H istory A ppe llants br ough t the und er lying su it on J anua ry 12, 200 4. O n A ugus t 5,

3 2005 , the S SAf

ile d am oti on t o di sm iss , or in the a lte rn at ive , f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. A ppe llants r es pond ed

by f ili ng a m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onm ost

co un ts of their claim and also a sked the court to def er consideration of counts IV, V, and VI I so that theycould cond uct discovery
. The court granted Appellant’ s m otion to defer
co nsi de ra tio n of

c ount s I V , V , a nd V II
. The co urt the n gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t to the SSA on the non de fe rr ed co unts and the defer red counts wer e dism issed
su bs eq ue nt ly. Appellants appeal o n four g rounds
. First, Appellants argue th at the SSAacted im pr ope rl y w he n it f ai le d to f ur nis h th e earn ing s re co rd s for fi ve m ine rs a ssi gne d to U SS M i n 1 9 9 3 a n df

o r t w e n t y - n i n e m i n e r s a s s i g n e dt o U S S i n S e p t e m b e r 199 5.1 1

Second, Appellants contest the assignm ent to USS of m iners who had wor ked long er fo r Bl ac k D ia m ond than f or U SS
. Appe llants a rg ue tha t those m ine rs sho uld ha ve b ee nas s i g n e di n s t e a dt o A r g yl e I n v e s t me n t s ( “A r g yl e ” ) , w h i c h w a s B l a c kD i a m o n d ’s pa re nt c om

pa ny an d w hic h is sti ll “ in busi ne ss” fo r pur pose s of the Co al A ct . T hir d, Appellants argue that the SSA i n co rrec tly assigned to Appellants three m iners that they had not em

ploy ed in the coal indu stry . Appellants essentially claim that the SSA arb i t rarily

and capriciously

rej ected evidence subm itted sho wing that those m iners ha d no t w orke d inAppe llants ’ c oa l op er at ion s. F ina lly , Appe llants ch al le ng e the S S A ’s a s s i g n me n to f

mi n e r s w h o h a db e c o me u n a s s i g n e df o l l o w i n g t h e S up r e me Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n E as te rnE nte rp ri se s.

JURISDIC TION & S TAN DA RD OF RE VIEW T he c ou rt ha s jurisdic tio n un de r 28 U
. S. C. § 13 31. W e re vie w agr an t of
su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, “ ap pl y in g t he same sta nd ard as t h e d i s t ric t co ur t.” Mahon v. U. S. De p’ t of Agr ic., 485 F.3d 1247 , 1252 (11th Cir. 2007 ). The summ ary j udgm en t pr oc ed

ur e is p ar tic ularl y appr opr ia te in c as es suc h a s th is, “ in w hic h a dis tr i c tc o u rti s a s k e dt o r e v i e w ad e c i s i o n r e n d e r e db y af e d e r a l a d m i n i s t ra tiv e ag en cy .” Id . at 1 25 3.

“ [E ] ve n inthe c ont ex t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, ” how ev er , “ an ag en cy ac tio n is
en tit le d to gr ea t de fe re nc e. ” P re se rv e E ndange re d A re as of Co bb’ s H ist or

y , I nc . v.1 2

U. S. Ar m y Corps of E ng’r s, 87 F. 3d 12 42, 1 246 (11th Cir. 1996 ). W e w ill uph old an ag en cy a ct ionunl es s it

is co ntr ar

y to la w , a n a

buse of dis cr et ion , or

arb itr ar y a nd
ca pr ic iou s. 5 U
. S. C. § 70 6( 2) (A ). W e “ m ay not subs tit ute [o ur ] j udgm en t f

or tha t of the a ge nc y

a nd c anse t a side an a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n on ly if the a ge nc y

r el ie d on im proper fac tors, fa iled to consider im portant relevant factors, or c omm itted a clear
er ro r of j udgm en t tha t l ac ks a

r at ion al c onne ct ionbe tw een th e fac ts f ound a nd the choice m ade.” A rango v. U .S . D ep’ t of t h e Tr ea s ury , 115 F. 3d 92 2, 928 (11th Cir. 19 97 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s & cit at io ns om it te d)
. DISC US SION I. Failure to F urnish Earnings R ecords Whe n ac oa l op er at or re ce ive s not ic e as sig nin g be ne fi ci ar ie s, it “ m ay , w ith in 30 d ay s of re ce ipt of suc h not ic e, r eque st f ro m the [ SS A ] de ta ile d in fo rm at iona s to the work history

of the beneficiar

y and th e b as i s o f t he assignm ent.” 26 U. S. C. § 97 06( f) (1 ). A ft er re ce ivi ng the re que ste d m at er ia ls, the ope ra tor “ m ay , w ith in 3 0 da y s of r ec ei pt o f the inf

or m at ion
. . . , r equest rev ie w o f the a ssi gnm en t. ” I d. § 97 06( f) (2 ). If the ope ra tor doe s not re que st ad dit ion al inf orm at ion , it m ay

r eque st
re vie w of the a ssi gnm en t w ith in 3 0 day s f ro m r ec ei pt o f the not ic e of as sig nm en t. 20 C. F. R. § 42 2. 605. Whe n ar ev ie w is co m ple te d, th e SSA’s de ci sio n is f ina l. 26 U
. S. C. § 9706 (f

)( 4)
. H er e, A ppe llants cl ai m tha t the SS A fa ile d to f ur nis h th em w ith1 3

the requested earnings records for m iners on two separate occasions. They seek an
or de r in st ru ct in g t he SSA to fur ni sh th os e rec or ds no w. A ppe llants c la im

tha t the S SAne gle ct ed

to se nd the m the r eque ste d e ar nin gs records for five m iners assigned to them in O ctober 1993
. Appellants did no t produce any copies of s uch a request, but instead rely upon a letter

from the SSAto show that the y ha d m ad e the r eque st. T he le tte r, da te d M ar ch31, 199 4, sta te s: W e ar e w riting y ou abou t the m iners assigned to y o u u n d er the C oal In dustry Re tir ee H ea lth Be ne fi t A ct of 1992
. A s y ou re que ste d, en cl ose d a re the earn ing s re co rd (s ) an d the ba sis f or the a ssi gnm en t( s) fo r th e m in er(s ) fo r who m y ou req ue st edsu ch in fo rm at io n. Le tter fr om

Frank J. Ha gel, A ssista n t Re gion al Com m issio ner, W estern Program Ser vice Center, SSA , to US X Corporation (Mar . 31, 1994 ). Sever al pa ge s la te r, the le tte r co nti nue s, sta tin g: Be low w e ide nti fy

the r et ir ed

c oa l m ine r( s) w hose e ar

nin gs r ec or d( s) is not e nc los ed
. W e w ill se nd y ou the earn ing s re co rd (s ) an d th e ba sis f or the assignm ent(s) later
. Id . The l et te r th en li st edth e fi ve m in ers in qu es ti on . App el l ants argue that the latter tw o sentences of the letter e stablish that they had requested the records at issue. The SSA argues o therwise, reasoning that its letter doe s no t e sta

bli sh tha t Appe llants ha d m ad e a tim el y r eque st f or r ec or ds b ec au se the SS A m ay ha ve “ ina dve rt en tl y ” inc lud ed the f ive m ine rs in the le tte r, “ m ist ak en ly1 4

t h i n ki ng th ey

were a p art of [ App el la nt s’] req ue st [s ]. ” (Ap pe ll ee’s Br. 2 5.) Re ga rd le ss o f w he the r A ppe llants ha d m ad e the re que st, the ir cl ai m s ar e ba rr ed by the st at ut e o f li m it at io ns . Beca use this claim for re view is brought un der the A PA and the Coal Ac t does not prov ide a statute of lim itations , this action is barred unless filed within six y ears of the f ina l a ge nc y

a ct ion
. 28 U
. S. C. § 24 01( a) ; C tr . for Bi ol og ic al D ive rs ity v. H am ilt on, 453 F
. 3d 1 331, 1334 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) ( “ [W he n] the A ct

pr es cr ibe s no sta tut e of li m ita tio ns, [ ] the ge ne ra l six -y ear sta tut e of lim ita tio ns fo r sui ts ag ai nst the U nit ed S ta te s a ppl ies. ”) ; U SXCo rp . v. Ba rn ha rt , 395 F
. 3d 1 61, 166 ( 3d C ir
. 200 4) (r ec ogni zi ng a six- y ear sta tut e of lim ita tio ns on cla im s fil ed unde r the Co al A ct ). T he st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg in s t o ru n o nc e th e ag en cy ha s i ss ue d a “ fin al act io n.” 5 U
. S. C. § 70 4; G a. P ow er Co
. v. T el ep ort Com

m c’ ns At la nta , In c. , 346 F
. 3d 1 047, 1050 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ Only final agency

actions can be subjec t to judicial re view. ”); T ra fa lgar Ca

pit al A sso cs . , In c. v. Cu om o, 159 F. 3d 21, 35 ( 1st Ci r. 199 8) ( re fe rr ing to the fi na l ag en cy ac tio n tha t co m m en ce d the sta tut e of lim ita ti on s) . To be
co nsi de re d “ fi na l, ” ana ge nc y ’ s a ct ion: (1 ) “ m ust m ar k th e co nsum

m at ionof the ag en cy ’ s de ci sio nm ak ing pr oc es s – i t m ust not be of am er el y

te nta tiv e or interlocutory nature;” and (2) “ m ust be one bywhich rights or obligatio ns have been determ ined, or from which legal consequences will flow. ” Be nnett v. Spear , 520 U. S.1 5

15 4, 1 77 –7 8 (1 99 7) (in te rn al cit at io ns & q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)
. He re, the as s i gnm ent of the beneficiar ies to Appellants is the final agency
ac tio n f or pur pose s of § 24 01( a)
. F ir st, the a ssi gnm en t of m ine rs is not te nta tiv e or int er loc uto ry

in na tur e, but ins te ad is a def ini tiv e dec isi on t o a ttr ibu te r es pons ibi lity fo r be ne fi ci ar ie s to oper at or s. Se co nd, onc e as sig nm en ts are m ad e, the ope ra tor m ust

“ pay the prem ium s attributable to the challenged assign m ents or incur the penalties fo r fa ilure to m ak e tho se pay m en ts ,” r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the ope ra tor se ek s adm ini str at ive r ev ie w of

the as sig nm en ts. D ixi e Fu el Co
. v. Co m m n’ r of S SA , 171 F. 3d 1 052, 105 8 (6th Ci r. 199 9) ( ove rt ur ne d onoth er

gr ound s by

Barn ha rt v. P ea body Coal Co., 537 U.S . 149, 168 (2003)). Thus, the requirem ents to be consi dered a f inal agency action are m et here. Appellants argue that the assignm ent of m iners is not th e re levant final agency
ac tio n. App el lants ar gue ins te ad tha t bec au se the y se ek onl y inf orm at ionr eg ar din g the m ine rs a ssi gne d, the r el ev an t l as t a ct ionis the S SA ’s f ai lur e to r es pond

to the ir
re q u est for inform ation, and this failure to act does not const itute a final agency
ac tio n f or pur pose s of § 2401 (a ). Whe the r A ppe llants se ek inf orm at ionr eg ar din g th e
as sig nm en t or

se ek r ev ie w of the as sig nm en ts, how ev er , Appe llants ha ve suf fe re d a final agency

action that has adversely affe cted them , as they have been oblig ed to pay prem ium s since th e i n i t i al as signm ent. S ee D ixie Fuel, 171 F. 3d at 105 8. F urther,We c an c on c e ive of the po ssi bil ity

of e rr on e ou s in fo rm a tio n mi sle a din g the a ssi g ne e in 4 su c h a wa y that th e e rr on e ou s in fo rm a tio n c ou ld n ot b e dis c ov e re d in a tim e ly fa sh ion , b ut t

hat is not the issue at hand. 1 6 a re que st f

or inf orm at ionr eg ar din g a n a ssi gnm en t do es not r el ie ve Appe llants of

the obl iga tio n to pr oc ee d in a tim el y m an ne r. Ra the r, a re que st fo r inf orm at ionis m er el y

“ ana ve nue tha t an a ssi gne d op erato r m ay ta ke to obt ai n r ev ie w of

the f ac tua l ba sis fo r the a ssi gnm en t of

pa rt ic ular be ne fi ci ar ie s. ” I d. a t 10 59. T hus, w e hol d th at the sta tut e of lim ita tio ns fo r A ppe llants ’ c la im r anf ro m the da te of

the ini tia l a ssi gnm en t. H er e, the a ssi gnm en t of the m ine rs a t i ssu e in 1 993 w as af ina l a ge nc y

a ct ion tha t be ga n th e sta tut e of li m ita tio ns p er iod
. Appell an ts d id n ot b ri ng the c ur re nt
ac tio n un til 200 4. N oth ing oc cu rr ed w hic h ar gua bly co uld ha ve tol le d th e sta tut e of lim ita tio ns f

or a suf fi ci en t l en gthof

ti m e to p re ve nt i ts e xpi ra tio n. L ike w ise , the statute of lim itations has run on the Appellants’ request for the re cords of the m iners
as sig ne d in199 5. I n th at ins ta nc e, Appe llants c la im tha t the S SAse nt the m

the
re cord s fo r the w ro ng m ine rs , a nd tha t the y nowse ek

the pr ope r re co rd s f

ro m the SSA
. The r ecords we re sent in 1996 , but Appellants d id not rea lize until 20 02 that the y ha d no t r ec ei ve d th e pr ope r re co rd s. Appe llants sho uld ha ve ch ec ke d th e re co rd s
m uc h e ar lie r an d have no exc use fo r not doin g so. A s Appe llants did not br ing sui t 4
un ti l 2 00 4, t he st at ut e o f li m it at io ns ha s ru n. A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins tTh e Coa l A c t r e qu ir e s th e SSAto “ a ssi g n e a c h c oa l in du str y re tir e e wh o is an e lig ibl e 5 be ne fi c iary

to a sig nator y op e rator wh ic h ( or

any re late d p e rs on

wi th r e sp e c t to wh ic h) re ma ins in business.” 26 U.S.C. § 9706(a). Th e Coa l A c t de fi ne s “ re late d p e rs on s” a s: 6 (i) a me mber of the controlled g roup of c orporations . . . which includ es such sig nator y op e rator ; (ii) a tra de o r b u s i n es s which is under c ommon control . . . with such signatory operator; or (iii) any other pe rson who is identified as having a partne rship interest or joint ve ntu re wi th a sig na tor y op e rator in a bu sin e ss w ith in the c oa l ind us tr y , but on ly

if su c h b us ine ss e mpl oy e d e lig ibl e be ne fi c iari e s, e xce pt that thi s c la us e sh a ll n ot a

pp ly to a per son whose only

interest is as a limited par tner. 26 U.S.C. § 9701(c)(2) (A). 1 7 A ppe llants on the ir

r eque st t o or de r the S SAto furn ishthe e ar nin gs r ec or ds f

or
ce rt ai n m ine rs a ssi gne d in199 3 a nd i n 19 95. II. Failure to A ssign Miners t o Relate d P ersons Appellants also challenge the assign m ent of fiftee n m iners who had wor ked long er f or Black D iam ond th an for them
. Appellants ac k n o wledge that the SS A
co uld not ha ve a ssi gne d th es e m ine rs to Bl ac k D ia m ond, be ca use it wen t out

of busin ess before the init ial assignm ents wer e m ade. Appellants, however, argue that 5 the S SAsho uld

ha ve a ssi gne d th e m in ers to A rg y le , w hic h w as a“ re la te d pe rs on” 6 to B la ck D ia m ond. In a re view decision given to Appellants, the SSA found that Ar gy le wa s Black Diam ond’s pare nt com

pan y a n d t h at the two w ere related f or purposes of the Coal Ac t. S SA Gr eat Lakes Program Serv. Ctr. , Coal Ac t ReviewDe term ination 6 (1998).1 8

T he S SA , how ev er , he ld tha t i t c oul d no t a ssi gn the m ine rs in que sti on t o A rg y le because it w as not “ in bus i n es s ” fo r purposes of the Coal Ac t. I d. at 7. T he SSA concluded t h at Ar g yle had not been in b usiness since 1996 because it becam e a h o l d i n g c o mp a n y, n o l o n g e r p a i dwa g e s t o e mp l o ye e s , s o l dmo s to f i t s r e a l p r o p e rt y, hired a re al estate m anagem ent com pany to adm inister its rem aining p arce l of rental pr ope rty , tr an sf

er re d the adm ini str at ionof it s in ve stm en t po rt fo lio to a ba nk, a nd
rece ived onl y

“ passive incom e” f

rom rent and investm ents. I d. at 6–7. The par ties ag re e t h a t A r g y l e w a s B l a c k D i a m o n d ’ s p a r e n t c o r p o r a t i o n a n d d o n o t ap pe ar to
co nte st tha t A rg y le a nd B la ck D ia m ond ar e “ re la te d. ” T hus, the iss ue is w he the r or not A rg y le is “ in b usi ne ss” w ith in the m eanin g of the Co al A ct . Un d er t h e Coal Act, “ a person shall be consid ered to be in business if such pe rs on con duc ts or de ri ve s re ve nue fr om an y busi ne ss a ct ivi ty , w he the r or not in the
co al ind ustry . ” 26 U
. S. C. § 9701( c) (7 ). W e agr ee w ith our sis te r co urts tha t this is
a br oa d de fi nit ion , “ inc lud ing w ith in its sc ope not onl y (1 ) ane nti ty tha t ‘ co nduc ts’ bu si ne ss act iv it y , bu t al so (2) on e who ‘ de riv es rev en ue ’ fro m b u si ne ss act iv it y .” Lindsey Coal Mining Co. v. C hater, 90 F.3d 688, 692 (3d Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) (s t at ing th at be ca use “ the ‘ co nduc ts’ pr ong is p ro vid ed f or se pa ra te ly , the ‘ de ri ve s r ev enue ’ pr ong doe s not re qui re the pa rty lia ble unde r the Co al A ct to its el f ‘ co nduc t’ a bu sines s
a c t i v i t y” ) ; D i s t . 2 9 , U n i t e dM i n e Wo rk e r s o f A m. v . U n i t e dM i n e Wo rk e r s o f A m.I n finding that Arg yle was not in business since 1996, the SSA focused on the f act that 7 Arg yle has not paid wa g es to any employ ees since that time. There is no indication, however , that th e pa

y me nt o f w a g e s is a

de te rm inativ e fa c tor

fo r d e c idi ngwh e the r o r n ot a c omp any is “ in business” for

purposes of the Act. 1 9 1992 Benefit Plan, 179 F. 3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 1999 ) (“ The Ac t em ploys an
ex pa nsive de fin iti on o f ‘ in b usi ne ss’ tha t i nc lud es ‘ co nduc tin g or de ri vin g r ev enue from any busin ess activity , w hether or not in the coal i ndus try .’ ”) (quot ing 26 U. S. C. § 970 1(c)( 7)) (e m

phasis rem oved). T he re is no d isp ute he re tha t Ar gy le is “ de ri vin g re ve nue . ” T ha t i s, A rg y le sti ll
ow ns a pa rc el of pr ope rty f ro m w hic h it re ce ive s re nta l inc om e an d ha s an in ve stm en t portfolio o f cash and pu blicly traded stocks, bonds, and notes from which it re ceives interest. Although Ar gy le is clear ly deriving revenue from various sources, the SSA argues that it is not d eriving revenue from “ busin ess activities” because it transfer red the m an ag em en t of

it s r en ta l pr ope rty to a re al es ta te m an ag em en t c om pa ny a nd the adm inistration of its investm ent portfolio to a bank. The SSA essentially claim s that

“ busi ne ss a ct ivi ty ” doe s no t i nc lud e “ pa ssi ve ” ow ne rs hip of r ev enue -g en er at ing
as se ts, but

m ust e nta il at le as t the m an ag em en t of the a sse ts. 7 The S SA ’s i n terpretation is contrary to legislativ e intent. A s Lindsey Coal indicates, Congress intended for the definition of “ in bus ines s” to be interpreted br oa dly
. L ind se y , 90 F
. 3d a t 6 92
. Particu la rl y pe rs ua siv e w as the f

oll ow ing2 0

exchange betwee n Senator Be ntse n, the n C ha irm an of the Senate Finance Com m ittee,
an d S en at or

Ro ck ef el le r, apr inc ipa l arc hit ec t of the le gis la tio n: Mr. BENT SE N: T hat definition of [business a ct ivity ] has alternative tests: a com

pany is co n s i d ered to be in business if it either co nduc ts a

bus ine ss a ct ivi tyor

“ de ri ve s r ev enue f

ro m ” a busi ne ss ac tiv ity
. A s is appare nt fr om the ex ist en ce of the tw o te sts , the int en tio n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s t o d e f

i n e t h e t e rm “ i n b u s i n e s s ” b r o a d l y.

. . . . E ve n inc as es w he re ac om pa ny is not c onside re d to c ondu ct

a busi ne ss o f it s own , if

the c om pa ny ha s le as ed

a ny of it s pr ope rty

in re tur n for the ri ght

to re ce ive r oy al tie s ba se d onthe use of the pr ope rty in a busin ess operated by the lessee, the com

pany would be considered to “ derive revenue f

rom ” th e b usiness activity conducted bythe lessee. Mr
. RO CKE FELLER
. Mr
. P re sid en t, a ga in I a gr ee w iththe ch ai rm anof

the F inanc e Co m

m itt ee . T he la ng uage of the sta tut e is pur pose ly br oa d. C er

ta inl y , ac om

pa ny w oul d be c onside re d to be in busin es s if it continu ed to own significant prop erties and has leased som e of tho se pr ope rt ie s so tha t it m ay de ri ve re ve nue fr om the bus ine ss operation of the leased properties by the lessee. 138 Con g. Re c. 34,034–3 5 (1992). It appe ar s fro m th is tha t a w ide va ri ety

of r ev enue -g en er at ing a ct ivi tie s, inc lud ing ow nin g a nd l ea sin g pr ope rty , w oul d cau se a com pa ny to be co nsi de re d “ in busi ne ss” w ith in the m eanin g of the A ct . T he re is no ind ic at iontha t C ongr es s m eant to d ef ine c er ta in p hr as es wi th in the de fi nit ionof “ in b usi ne ss, ” suc h a s “ busi ne ss
ac tiv it y ,” na rr ow ly
. D oin g so w oul d un de rm ine the ove ra ll br oa d m eanin g of the sta tut e, a llo w ing c om

pa nie s to e sc ap e liabili ty und er the A ct by f ram ing the ir
re ve nue -g en er at ing a ct ivi tie s as “ pa ssi ve ” busi ne ss a ct ivi tie s. T he le gis la tiv e int en t2 1

to c o n s t r u e “ i n b u s i n e s s ” b r o a d l y c o u n s e l s u s i n s t e a d t o c o n s i d e r t h e o w n e r s h i p of
r e v e n u e - g e n e r a t i n g p r o p e rt y, i n v e s t men t s , a n d o t h e r a s s e t s a s “ b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y”
w ith in the m eanin g of

the Co al A ct . S ee L ind se y , 90 F
. 3d a t 69 2 ( hol din g th at a
co m pa ny t ha t de ri ve d r ev enue f ro m le as ing it s pr ope rty

w as “ in b usi ne ss” f

or purpos es for the Coal A ct); Dist. 29, 179 F. 3d at 145 (holding that a com pany that ha d c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on o ve r its r ev enue -g en er at ing as se ts r em ai ns “ in b usi ne ss”
w ith in the m eanin g of

the A ct ); U nit ed

Mi ne W orke rs of

A m . 199 2 B en ef

it Pl anv. Ru sht on ( Inr e Sunny sid e Co al Co
. ), 146 F
. 3d 1 273, 127 9–80 ( 10th C ir
. 199 8) (holdin g that a com

pany that entered into liqui dation rem ains in bus iness for purposes of the A ct ); Whe el ing -P itt sbur gh Ste el Co rp . v. Barn ha rt , 229 F
. S upp. 2d 5 39, 553 (N
. D
. W
. V a. 2002 ) (h old ing tha t a com pa ny tha t ge ne ra te d r ev enue f

ro m the sa le of its assets rem ained “ in bus iness”). A s pr ev iou sly

stat ed , the pa rt ie s do not c ont es t tha t A rg y le is sti ll re ce ivi ng
re ve nue f ro m it s le as ed pr ope rty a nd i ts i nve stm en t po rt fo lio
. T ha t A rg y le ch ose to de le ga te m an ag em en t of

it s pr ope rty

a nd o the r as se ts to thir d partie s do es not r el ie ve it fr om li ab ili ty f or pr em ium s ow ed

und er the A ct . T hus, w e hold

tha t A rg y le is “ in busi ne ss” f

or pur pose s of the sta tut e. A cc or din gly , w e w ill re ve rs e the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o or de r the S SAto re sc ind the assignm ent to Appellants of eleven of the fiftee n m iners at issue that indi sputabl y hadThe SSA also claims that Appellants did not alleg e in their re quest for r eview, a nd 8 employ ment rec ords do not support the conc lusion, that four of the f ifteen miner s at issue, McNe el, Knott, Kendr ick and Shaw, ha d worke d for B lack Diamond. (Appellee ’s B r. 34 n.14.) The SSA argues that if the c ourt rema nds this claim, it s hould exclude these four miners from rec onsideration. B eca

use the district cour

t disposed of this issue in the SS A’s fa vor on leg al g ro un ds , th e SSA may

no w a dd re ss t his fa c tua l is su e be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt .

2 2 w orke d f or Bl ac k D ia m ond lon ge r than f or Appe llants . 8 III . R eb ut ta bl e P re su m pt ion A ppe llants al so c ha lle nge the r ev ie w de ci sio ns u phol din g th e as sig nm en t of t h r e e mi n e r s , Le e J o n e s , Vi c t o r Hr i b a r , a n dWo o d r o w S t e w a rt . S p e c i f i c a l l y, Appellants assert that the SSA m isapplied a rebutt able presum ption that a m iner w as
em ploy e d i n t he c oa l i nd

us t ry by a si gn a t or

y op e r a t or “ t o de ny t he app e a l of an operator w ho has sh own that there are no rec ords . . . show[ing] that the m iner had worked for

that operator in the coal indust ry .” (Appellants’ Br . 37. ) Prelim inarily , a dm inistrative agencies m ay establish presum ption s, “ as l ong as the re is a ra tio na l ne xus be tw ee n th e pr ove n f ac ts and the pr es um ed

f ac ts. ” Co le v. U
. S. D ep ’ t of

A gr ic
. , 33 F.3 d 1263 , 126 7 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4) ; S ec ’ y of L ab or v. Ke y stone Coal Mi ning Corp., 151 F. 3d 10 96, 1100-01 (D .C. Cir. 1998 ) (stating that presum pt i o n s are perm issib le “ if there is ‘ a sound and rational connection between the pr ove d a nd i nf

er re d f ac ts’ ”) ( quot ing Ch em . Mf rs . A ss’ n v. D ep ’ t of

T ransp. , 105 F. 3d 7 02, 705 ( D
. C. Ci r. 199 7) ). “ A ppe llants be ar ‘ the he av y

bur de n of de m onstra ti ng that the re is no r at ion al c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e fa ct pr ove d a nd the2 3

ult im at e fa ct

to be pr es um ed
. ’ ” U SXCo rp . , 395 F
. 3d a t 17 0 ( quot ing Co le , 33 F
. 3d at12 67 ). H er e, w he n as sig nin g be ne fi ci ar ie s to c oa l op er at or s, the S SAe xa m ine s it s earnings records, which identify the em ploy ers of e ach beneficiar y but no t the nature of the em plo ym en t. I nst ea d of

sho w ing tha t a

w orke r w as e m

plo y ed spe ci fi ca lly

in the coal indus try , the S SA em ploy s a rebuttable presum ption that a [beneficiary ] who o therwise qualified f or benefits under the Coal Ac t wa s “ em ploy ed in the coal indus try ” for purposes of 26 U. S. C. § 970 6(a) if (1) his em

ploy er w as a coal m ine operator that signed a natio nal coal wa g e a g re emen tan d(2 ) h i s empl o ym en to cc u rr ed du ri n g t h e e m pl o yer’s pa rt ic ipa tio n inthe na tio na l c oa l w ag e ag re em en t. Id
. W e ag re e w ithour sis te r ci rc uit

that it is a re as ona

ble inf er en ce tha t a be ne fi ci ar

y ’ s e ar nin gs f ro m ac oa l op er at or , w hic h a re pos te d to the S SA ’ s e ar nin gs records, we re f

or work in the coal industry
. See id. at 172. Fu rther, as the T hird Ci rc uit not ed , the S SA ’ s “ re but ta ble pr es um

pti on i s a s ensib le r es pons e” to the difficulty of locating re co rd s t hat the worker wa s em ploy ed specifically

in the coal ind ustry a s th e “ be ne fi ci ar ie s’ pe rs onne l f ile s c anda te ba ck

f if ty to six ty y ears , a nd
ev ena[ w orke r] ’ s ow n e m pl oyer c anha ve dif

fi cu lty r etri ev ing the m . ” I d. ( ci tin g Pandui t C or

p. v. A ll St at es P la sti c Mf g. Co
. , 744 F
. 2d 1 56 4, 15 81 (F ed Ci r. 198 4) (“ Pres u m p t i o n s of fac t have been cre ated to assist in certain circum stances wher e2 4

dir ec t pr oof

of am at te r is
. . . r en de re d di ff ic ult
. ”) ( ove rr

ule d onoth er

gr ound s by Richardson-Merr ell, I nc. v. Koller, 472 U.S . 424, 432 (1985)). Moreover, if a w orker
w as not em

plo y ed in the co al ind

ustry , the c oa l op er at or

is in a pos iti on t o c or

re ct the
m is ap pr eh en si on . Id. The par ties here disagree on what occurs w hen an operator presents evidence
re but tin g the pr es um

pti on. Appe llants c la im

tha t, li ke e m

plo ym en t di sc ri m ina tio n
ca se s, apr es um

pti on shi ft s the bur de n of goi ng f or w ar d w ithe vid en ce but

doe s no t shi ft the bur de n of

pr oof
. S ee Chap m anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F
. 3d 1 012, 102 4 ( 11th Ci r. 200 0) ( sta tin g th at

an em plo y er onl y ne ed s to pr oduc e ev ide nc e re but tin g a pr es um pti on o f dis cr im ina tio n, but tha t the bur de n of

pe rs ua sion r em ai ns o n th e
em plo y ee to pr ove tha t he wa s a vi ct im of int en tio na l di sc ri m ina tio n)
. A cc or din g to A ppe llants , the S SAc anuse the pr es um pti on t o m ak e the ini ti al as sig nm en ts b ut cannot use the presum

ption to supp ort a denial of an appeal or i f an o p erator has pr es en te d e vid en ce r eb utt ing the pr es um pti on. I n c ontra st, the S SAc la im s th at the pr es um pti on c anbe use d du ri ng the r ev ie w pr oc es s and t ha t the f ram ew ork f

or apply ing rebuttable presum ption s in dis crim ination cases do es n ot applyto this case. (Appellee’ s Br. 49.) W e ag re e w iththe S SAa nd the dis tr ic t c ourt that it is reasonab le f or the presum ption to stand du ring a review of an assignm ent. The Coal Act pr ovid es thatThe SSA does not prese nt a convincingargument as to why the fra mework f or applying 9 presumptions in discrimination cases ha s no utili ty here
. The SSA argues that this case is unlike discrimination cases for which cour

ts developed the framework f

or applying pr esumptions as a re sponse to “the diff icult task of discer

ning the defe ndant’s motive.” ( Appellee ’s B r. 49.) The rationale for a pplying the presumption, howeve r, is simi lar to the ra

tionale for a

pply ing pr esumptions in dis crimination ca ses. L ike discrimination case s, the presumption here is used in response to the diff iculty of locating dire ct evidenc e, i.e., fifty -or sixt y -y ear -old employ ment rec ords showing that an oper ator e mpl oy e d a be ne fi c iary

in 2 5 if a n op er at or

dis ag re es w itha n in iti al a ssi gnm en t, it c anseek rev ie w of

the assignm ent by

providin g evidence showing a “ prim a fa cie ca se of er ror. ” 26 U. S. C. § 97 06( f) (2 ). T hus , i t is durin g ar ev ie w tha t an op er at or m ay of fe r suf fi ci en t
ev id en ce t o re bu t t he pre su m pt io n. Sufficie nt evidence is “ the kind of evidence a r easonable m ind m ight accept as ad equa te to supp ort a

c onc lus ion
. ” Co noc o, I nc . v. D ir
. , O ff ic e of W orke rs ’ Co m

p. Program s, 194 F. 3d 684, 690 (5th Cir. 1999 ) (quoting Noble Drilling Co. v. Dr ake, 795 F. 2d 4 78, 481 ( 5thCi r. 19 86 ) (ab ro ga te d onoth er gr ound s by

D ir
. , O ff ic e of W orke rs ’ Co m

p. P ro gr am s v. G re en w ic h C oll ie ri es , 512 U
. S. 267 ( 1994 ))
. T he
ev ide nc e m

ust m er el y “ ra ise [] age nui ne iss ue of fact as to whe the r” the ope ra tor
em plo y ed the be ne fi ci ar

y in the c oa l i ndus tr

y . Ch ap m an , 229 F
. 3d a t 10 24 ( ci ta tio ns & quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). I f the op er at or c an not pr es en t su che vid en ce , the pr es um pti on s ta nds. O nc e anope ra tor pr es en ts s uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce r eb utt ing the pr es um pti on, how ev er , the S SAm ust the n sh owtha t the be ne fi ci ar y ha s w orke d in the c oa l i ndus tr

y f or the ope ra tor . S ee S t. Mary ’ s H onor Ctr. v. H ic ks, 509 U
. S. 502 ,

9the c oa l in du str y . U SX, 39 5 F .3 d at 17 2. On c e the re is a c tua l r e butti nge vid e nc e , h ow e ve r, it cannot be ignor ed. 2 6 507– 08 (1993 ) (stating that in em ploy m ent discrim i na

t i on c a se s, once a

defendant has
re but te d th e pr es um

pti on tha t i t ha d di sc ri m ina tor y m oti ve s f

or it s act io ns, the plaintiff then has the bu rden of p ersuasion to show that he wa s a victim of intention al discrim ination ); Chapm an, 229 F. 3d at 102 4–25 (sam e). H e r e , t h e S S A ap p a r e n t l y f o u n dt h a tAp p e l l a n t s d i dn o tp r o du c e s u f f i c ie nt
ev ide nc e to r eb ut the pr esum pti on tha t L ee Jon es , V ic tor H ri ba r, a nd W oodr ow Stew art w orked for them

in the coal i ndus try . W e review th e SSA’ s decisions under
ana rb itr ar

y a nd c ap ri ci ous standard
. A. Lee Jones A ppe llants c ont en d th at

Jon es w orke d ina n oi l w el l ware hous e ra the r than in
a co al m ine
. I n su

ppor t, Appe llants sub m itt ed ana ff idavit f ro m aU SS r ep re se nta tiv e sta tin g th at

he spo ke w ith Jone s’ ne phe w , V inc en t Col em an , w ho s poke w ithhis aunt , Jone s’ w ido w . (D im

m oc k Af f. ¶ 3, Jul y

9, 199 9. ) S he inf

orm ed he r ne phe w tha t sh e did not r ec al l he r husb an d e ve r w orkin g inac oa l m ine fo r A ppe llants . ( Id
. ) Jon es ’
ne phe w f urthe r sta te d th at

his aunt a nd h er hus ba nd l ive d inCh ar le sto n, W es t Virginia, during hi s em

ploy m ent with U SS. (Id. ) Appellants th en subm itted an affidavit stating that they did not own any coal m ines in Charleston, W est Vir ginia,2 7

dur ing the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od. (B osko vic h A ff
. ¶ 4, Jul y 9, 199 9. ) Appe llants a lso subm itt ed ali st o f U SS f

ac ili tie s f ro m the 195 0s show ing tha t the re w as a n oi l w el l
wa rehouse i n C har l e st on a t t ha t t i m e a nd t ha t t he c l os e st c oa l m i ne w a s 13 4 m iles
aw ay . Se e Barn ha rt , 2006 U
. S. D ist
. L E X IS 9479 8, a t *5 7 n. 15. Appe llants a rg ue that it was no t poss ible for Jo nes to have com m uted to work at any

of the m ines that U SS ow ne d inW es t V ir gin ia , a nd tha t Jone s m ust ins te ad ha ve w orke d at US S’ oil well wareh ou se . Upon request for re view, the SSArej ected Appellants’ ar gum en t . The SSA fo und tha t Jo ne s w orke d f or U SS dur ing the pe ri od a t i ssu e, tha t Jo ne s ha d no t worked for

any other coal industry

em ploy er a fter w orking for US S, and that USS
wa s a signatory

to a coal wa ge agreem ent for the periods sho wn. Id. at *50. Ba sed on this , the S SAc onc lud ed tha t the Appe llants w er e the la st sig na tor y ope ra tor s st ill in b usi ne ss t o e m

plo y Jon es in the c oa l i ndus tr y und er ac oa l w ag e ag re em en t. Des pi te th e d efer en ti al st an da rdwit h wh ic h we r ev ie w dec is io ns of th e SSA, th ere m us t b e a “ rat io na l co nn ect io n b et ween th e fac ts fou nd an d th e ch oi ce m ad e.” A rango, 115 F
. 3d a t 92 8 ( ci ta tio n & quo ta tio n m ar ks o m itt ed ). Here, the re is no ration al co nnection b etwe en the SSA ’ s denial and the evidence with which it w asTh e SSA argue s th a t e mpl oy me nt r e c or ds sh ow ingthat Jone s w or ke d in an o il 10 wa re ho us e rathe r t

ha n a c oa l mi ne wo uld

be the on ly

e vid e nc e c a

pa ble of re butti ngits pr e sumpt ion , b ut t

hat is e rr on e ou s. As pr e vio us ly sta te d, to r e but th e pr e sumpt ion , App e lla nts must sim ply

prese nt “the kind of e vidence a re asonable mind might acc ept as a dequate to support a conc lusion.” Conoco, 194 F.3d at 690. The SSA argues that its decision was not ar bitrary and ca pricious bec ause Jones “mig ht 11 have c ommuted during this ti me, workinga swingshift and living in close proxi mity to the mines while workingand re turning to Charleston during[hi s] t ime off.” (Appe llee’s B r. 51.) We d o n ot g ive we ig ht t o c ounc il’ s p os t- ho c , uns ub sta nti a te d c la im. 2 8 pr es en te d. T he e vid en ce he re , tha t Jone s’ w ido w did not r ec al l hi m

e ve r w orkin g 10 in a coal m ine, that Jones lived in Charleston, W est Vir ginia, and that the closest coal
m ine to Ch ar le sto n w as 134 m ile s aw ay , supp orts the co nc lus ion tha t Jone s di d no t
w ork inthe c oa l indus tr

y fo r A ppe llants . T he SS A , how ev er , did not a ddr es s th is 11
ev ide nc e but

m er el y r ep ea te d th e fa ct or s le ad ing to the appl ic at ionof the pr es um pti on. A s App el la nts ha d pre se nte d evid en ce to re but S SA ’ s pr es um

pti on, the SSAcannot poin t to the presum ption itself to refute the rebuttal. I n so do ing, the SSA acted ar bitrarily and capriciously
. Ac cordingly , w e re verse the order of the district
co urt and r em an d f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt to or de r the S SAto re sc ind the a ssi gnm en t of Jo ne s t o Ap pe ll an ts . B. V ic to r Hr ib ar Appellants also claim

that Hr ibar d i d n ot work for Appellants o r a r elated
com pany in a positio n that would qualify for NBCWA benefits. Upon review bef ore the S SA , A ppe llants pr oduc ed e vid en ce tha t the Co m

bin ed F und did not ha ve r ec or dsThe Combined Fund a ppare ntly keeps e mploy

ment rec ords of e ligible be nefic iaries. 12 See 26 U.S.C. § 9706(c)
. 2 9 showing that Hribar

had worked for Appellants. Instead, the Com bined Fund had 12 records sh owing that Hr ibar worked for Hillm an Coal & Coke during 1 952, the y ear t h a tS S A r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e dt h a tAp p e l l a n t s e mp l o ye dHr i b a r . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, Ap p el l an t s p re s en t ed ev i d en ce t h a t o n e o f t h ei r e m p l o yees s p o k e t o Hr i b ar ’s daught er , w ho d id not re ca ll he r fa the r w orkin g for the m but re ca lle d hi m w orkin g f

or H ill m andur ing the ti m e in que sti on. Appe llants a lso sub m itt ed sta te m en ts f

ro m the ir record cu sto dians s ta tin g th at the y did not f ind a ny e m plo ym en t r ec or ds i ndi ca tin g tha t Appe llants ha d em

plo y ed H ri ba r. A ppe llants furthe r supp orte d th ei r ar gum en t
w itha se co nd re port ge ne ra te d by the SS A show ing tha t H ri ba r w orke d fo r a div isi on of App el la nt s co ns tru ct in g b rid ge s an d h ig h- ris e o ffi ce b ui ld in gs . In r e sp on se , t he S S A no t e d t ha t a m i c r of i c he c op y of a pa ge from a U SS subs idi ar y ’ s w ag e re port f

ile d w iththe I RS f

or 1952 w as ar el ia

ble doc um en t sh ow ing that USS em

ploy ed Hr ibar. The SSAfurt h er s t at ed that althoug h the Com bined Fund’ s r ec or ds s how ed

tha t H ri ba r did

not r ep ort w orkin g f

or Appe llants with th e Fund, the F und ha d H ri ba r’ s e ar nin gs r ec or ds f

ro m the fo urth qua rt er

of 195 2 showing em

ploy m ent with Car

negie Illinois Steel C orporation, a U SS subsidiary in vo lv ed in the c oa l i ndus tr y . T he S SAr es pond ed

to A ppe llants ’ pr oduc tio n of3 0

evidence, and its conclusio n that Appellants em ploy ed Hr ibar in the c oal indu stry wa s not arbitrary or capricious. Thus, w e af firm the district court’ s judgm ent as to Hribar
. C. Woodrow Ste w art Fi na lly , Appe llants ch al le nge the a ssi gnm en t of S te w ar t, a rg uin g th at

the y did not e m plo y him in the co al ind

ustry . A ppe llants subm itt ed ev ide nc e to the SS A f ro m the U MWA sho w ing tha t i t di d no t have a ny r ec or d of S te w ar t’ s e m pl oym ent w ith A ppe llants . A ddi tio na lly , Appe llants sub m itt ed a n a ffi da vi t f

ro m the ir dir ec tor of
em plo y ee re la tio ns sta tin g that the y did not ow n a ny c oa l m ine s inCh ar le sto n, W es t V ir gin ia , w he re Appe lla

nts ar gue tha t Ste w ar

t live d f or m ost of his li fe
. Appe llants cl ai m tha t S te w ar

t l ive d inCh ar le sto n ba se d up on h is e ar nin g r ec or ds s how ing
em ploy m ent m ainly

by com panies in Charleston. Appellants believe that Stew art ins te ad wor ke d at the sa m e oil w ar eh ouse a s Jo ne s. T he S SAr ej ec te d Appe llants ’
co nte nti ons, not ing tha t S te w ar t’ s e ar nin gs r ec or ds s how ed

tha t h e had

w orke d f or USS. Although this case appears c lose, it does not appear that the SSAcom m itted a clear er ror of j udgm ent in deny ing Appellants’ a ppeal. While Appellants presented
ana ff idavit r el ay ing Jon es ’ w ido w ’ s r ec oll ec tio n sta tin g tha t Jo ne s di d no t w ork in
a c o a l m i n e f

o r t h e m , t h e y

d i dn o tp r e s e n ts u c h e v i d e n c e h e r e . F u rt h e r , Ap p el la nts ha ve not pr es en te d e vid en ce tha t S te w ar t a ct ua lly li ve d w ith in C ha rl es tondur ing theWithre sp e c t to Hr iba r a nd Ste wa rt , App e lla

nts a lso argue that th e SSAa c te d a rb itr ari ly 13 and ca priciously by not following its prior pr actice of re versingassig nments when the Combined Fund infor

ms the SS A that the wor

k at issue “wa s not covere d ear nings.” (Appe llants’ Br . 36 n.5.) Appe llants, however , have pr ovided no leg al authority to support their argument, nor have they elabor ated upon the pr ior instances in whic h the SSA rever sed an a ssignment ba sed upon the Combined Fund’s lac k of re cords showinga bene ficiar y ’s employ

ment with an oper ator. (I d.) We will not address this perfunc tory and under develope d argument. See F lanig an’s Ente rs., Inc. v. Fulton County , Ga., 242 F .3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that a par ty waives a n argument if the par

ty “fa il[ s] t o elabor ate or

provide a ny citation of authority

in support” of the argument); Ordowe r v. F eldman, 826 F .2d 1569, 1576 (7th Cir. 1987) (statingthat an ar g ument made without citation to authority is insufficient to raise a

n issue befor e the c ourt). 3 1 en tir e tim e pe ri od i n qu es tio n. R athe r, e vid en ce sho w ed tha t S te w ar

t di d no t w ork,
an d pr es um ab ly

did not li ve , e xc lus ive ly

in Ch ar le sto n. G ive n su ch , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t tha t the SS A pr ope rl y uphe ld the as sig nm en t of S te w ar t t o A ppe llants . 13 IV. Mine rs Af

fect ed b y Eastern E nter prises L as tly , Appe llants ar gue tha t the SS A im pr ope rl y a ssi gne d th em

m ine rs w ho ha d be ena ssi gne d pr ev iou sly to ope ra tor s tha t ha d not be ensig na tor ie s to the 197 4 N BC W A o r an y

sub se que nt c oa l w ag e ag re em en ts. A s pr ev iou sly dis cu sse d, the Su pr em e Co urt he ld i n E as te rnE nte rp ri se s th at the im posi tio n of

li ab ili ty f or prem ium s upon com

panies who we re no t s i gnatories to th e 1974 NBCWA, or a subs eque nt c oa l w ag e ag re em en t, is un co nstitu tio na l. E
. E nte rs . , 524 U
. S. a t 53 7. Miners previouslyassigned to such com panies thus becam e “unassig ned.” T he SSA the n r ea ssi gne d th es e m ine rs to sig na tor y ope ra tor s w ho ha d e m

plo y ed the m the “ ne xt lon ge st. ” Appe llants c ha lle ng e th is act ion , a rg uin g th at the li te ra l l an gua ge of

the3 2

Co al A ct pr ec lud es “ re as sig nm en t” of the m ine rs a ff

ec te d by E as te rnE nte rp ri se s. (Ap pe ll an ts ’ Br. 4 3.) A s t h e C o a l A c t d o e s n o t s t a t e h o w t h e S S A s h o u l dh a n d l e mi n e r s w h o b e c a me
una ssi gne d f

oll ow ing E as tern E nte rp ri se s, the S SAw as w ith out gui da nc e w he n it “re a s s i g n e d ” mi n e r s t o a“ ne wl y n a rr o w e dg r o up o f qu a l i f i e dc o a l o p e r a t o r s . ” S i d n e y, 427 F.3d at 346. H ence, the issue is whether the SSA perm issib ly construed the Coal Ac t in its effort to com

ply with Eastern Enterprises. Id. at 346; Pittston, 368 F.3d at 402 (c iti ng C he vr on U
. S. A
. , In c. v. N at ur al Re s. D ef

. Co unc il, 467 U
. S. 837 , 843 (1984)). T he F ourth and S ixth C ir cu it s ha ve a ddr es se d th is m at te r an d he ld tha t the

“ reassignm ent” of m iners rendere d unassi gned following Eastern E nterpris es wa s pr op e r . P i t t s t o n , 3 6 8 F
. 3 d a t 4 0 5 ; S i d n e y , 4 2 7 F
. 3 d a t 3 4 9
. I n P i t t s t o n , the F our th Ci rc uit not ed tha t, a ft er

E as te rn En te rp ri se s, sig na tor y ope ra tor s “ inc lud e[ d] onl y operators that had signed a 1 974 NBC W A or later agreem ent.” Pittston , 368 F. 3d at 403. The co urt then reasoned that with the assignm ent to such op erators deem ed inv al id and w ithane w de fi nit ionof w ho c om

pose d th e “ sig nato ry op erato rs , ” the SS A w as m er el y

f oll ow ing the dir ec tiv es of 26 U. S. C. § 97 06( a) w he n it a ssi gne d th e be ne fi ci ar ie s to ope ra tor s w ho h ad e m plo y ed the be ne fi ci ar ie s th e ne xt l onge st. I d. at 403 –04 (“ [T he SS A ] m er el y re m ove d f ro m the poo l of

pos sib le c ontri but or s th ose3 3

coal operators that could n ot consti tutio nally be required to contribute.”)
. Likew ise, in S idn ey Co al Co
. v. S SA , the S ixth C ir cu it re as one d th at E as te rnE nte rp ri se s m er el y

“ he ld tha t the S SA‘ shou ld n ev er h av e as sig ne d th e re tir ee s to E as te rnin the f ir st pla ce ’ ” an d tha t “ [a ] ft er

de te rm ini ng tha t i ts E as te rn -ty pe a ssi gnm en ts w er e ‘ inv al id fr om the be gin nin g, ’ the S SA be ga n ane w , as sig nin g be ne fi ci ar ie s ‘ to c om port w ith the te rm s of

the sta tut e as w el l a s th e Co nst itu tio n. ’ ” 427 F
. 3d a t 34 7 ( quot ing Pi tt st on , 36 8 F .3d at 4 03 ). The c ourts also found no basis in the text of § 9706 (a) for leaving the m iners affe cted by

Ea stern Ent e r

pr i se s un a ss i gn e d. P ittsto n held that “ Section 9706 (a) leaves unassig ned onlythose retirees w ho were never em ploy ed by a signato ry

operator that
was ‘ in bu si ne ss ’ atth e en act m en t o f th e Co al Act.” Pi tt st on , 36 8 F .3d at 4 04 n.3
. S im ilarl y , S idn ey re m ar

ke d that the fa ilure to a ssi gn a be ne fi ci ar

y to the r es pons ibl e
co al ope ra tor

w ou ld shi ft

be ne fi ci ar ie s in to the “ una ssi gne d” c at eg or y w hic h is
res erv ed “ fo r tho se be ne fi ci ar ie s w ith out a ny f orm er e m plo y er sti ll in b usi ne ss, socalled ‘ true orphans.’ ” Si d n ey, 427 F.3d at 349– 50 (citing Peabody , 537 U. S. at 165– 66)
. Me an w hil e, as sig nin g m ine rs ba se d on a ne w ly de fi ne d gr oup of

e lig ibl e operat o rs co m

ports with legislativ e intent to m inim ize the num ber of unassigned be ne fi ci ar ie s. P itt sto n, 368 F
. 3d a t 40 4; S idn ey , 427 F
. 3d a t 34 9. W e ag re e w ith th e Fourth and S ixth C ir cu its tha t the S SA ’ s a ppr oa chtoOther c ourts have he ld simi larly to Pit tston and Sidney . See Elg in Nat’l I ndus., I nc. v. 14 Ba rnhar t, No. 04-5243, 2005 U.S. App. L EXI S 7361, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2005) ( stating that Ap pe lla nt’ s “ argume nt p e rt a ini ngto t he re a ssi g nme nt o f b e ne fi c iari e s a ft e r E a ste rn En te rp ri se s is reje cted f or the re asons set for

th in [ Pitt ston] ”); Wheeling -Pittsburgh, 229 F . Supp. 2d at 554 (“The Commi ssioner had the authority to rea ssign be nefic iaries in re sponse to . . . Easter n En te rp ri se s and , th

us , d id n ot a c t in

an a rb itr ary and c a pr ic iou s ma

nn e r b ut, rathe r, a c te d w ith in the bounds of the law .”). 3 4 as sig nin g m ine rs a ff

ec te d by East er n E nte rp ri se s is r ea sona

ble a nd c om

ports w ith both th e Su

pr em e Court ’ s holdi ng and w iththe le gis la tiv e int en t of the Co al A ct . 14 A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th is r eg ar d. CON CLU SION For the fore goin g reasons, w e R E V E RS E in pa rt, REMAND in pa rt , a nd AFFIRM in par

t the district c ourt’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to the SSA . We RE V E RS E the dis tr ic t c our t’ s j udgm en t up hol din g th e SS A ’ s as si gnm en t t o Appellants of Le e J o n es an d of the eleven m iners at issue who we re e m ploy ed pr ev iou sly

by Bl ac k D ia m ond. W e RE MA N D fo r furthe r co nsi de ra tio n of the f our
m ine rs w hos e em

plo ym en t w ithBl ac k D ia m ond is d isp ute d. W e A FF IRM the
rem ai nd er o f th e d is tri ctco ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he SSA.