Thе Secretary of Labor appeals from a judgment of the district court which permanently enjoins him from applying the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA”), 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., to railroad employees, former railroad employees, or railroads. Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. Acсordingly, we remand with directions to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action.
Fifteen railroads which transport coal in interstate commerce brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1361 and 2201, as amended, challenging Department of Labor guidelines for determining the eligibility of individuals engaged in coal transportation for BLBA benefits. 1 At the time this suit was commenced, more than 700 claims had been filed under the BLBA by former and *1245 current railroad employees. The district court accepted the railroads’ argument that as a matter of law they are not included within the definition of “operator” under the BLBA and, hence, are not liable for BLBA benefits.
It is well established that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is not an independеnt source of federal jurisdiction.
Schilling v. Rogers,
The same principle which limits jurisdiction under sections 1337 and 1361 applies with equal force to the general federal question jurisdiction granted in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In
Memphis Trust Co. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co.,
The central issue in this case is whether subject matter jurisdiction over District Five’s complaint exists in the district courts. We hold that it does not, because we agree with the district court that the scheme of review established by Congress for dеterminations of black lung disability benefits was intended to be exclusive. Thus, the proper method for contesting *1246 the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of § 413(b) is to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the statute and then to seek review, if desired, in the court of appeals, rather than to seek an injunction against the Secretary in district court.
Underlying our conclusion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction is the general rule that if “there exists a special statutory review procedure, it is ordinarily supposed that Congress intended that procedure to be the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review in those cases to which it applies.” City of Rochester v. Bond,603 F.2d 927 , 931 (D.C.Cir.1979). Moreover, “there is a strong presumption against the availability of simultаneous review in both the district court and the court of appeals.” Sun Enterprises, Ltd. v. Train,532 F.2d 280 , 287 (2d Cir.1976). Because Congress has specifically provided for a statutory scheme whereby claims must first be decided administratively and then reviewed in the courts of appeals, with jurisdiction expressly provided for in the district courts only in specific, limited circumstances, our analysis begins with a presumption that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action. We look then to whether an examination of the statute’s legislative history, purpose, and design reveals circumstances appearing in this case which are sufficient to overcome that presumption.
In reaching a contrary conclusion, the district court relied primarily upon
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,
With respect to
Abbott Laboratories,
it is sufficient to note that that decision dealt exclusively with application of the APA and that Congress in enacting the BLBA expressly excluded the provisions of the APA. 30 U.S.C. § 956. Moreover, later authority indicates that
Abbott Laboratories
“arguably assumed with little discussion that the APA is an independent grant of subject matters jurisdiction.”
Califano v. Sanders,
Nearly all the cases which address the question of district court jurisdiction for nonstatutory review of administrative action recognize that in narrow circumstances some residuum of federal question subject matter jurisdiction may exist in the United States District Court, although apparently otherwise precluded by a comprehensive statutory review scheme. Thus, as Judge Garth observed in
Compensation Department:
“[i]f the remedies provided for in the statutory scheme of review are inadequate in a particular case, an argument can be made that Congress did not intend to forbid the district courts from taking jurisdiction.”
The legislative history of the Act is almost completely silent as to the exclusivity or concurrency of the review procedures which it specifies. Generally, however, when Congress has specified a procedure for judicial review of administrative action, courts will not make nonstatutory remedies available without a showing of patent violation of agency authority or manifest infringement of substantial rights irremediable by the statutorily-prescribed method of review .... ”
As stated above, we believe Compensation Department convincingly establishes that the BLBA statutory scheme of review is exclusive. As Judge Garth pointed out, the BLBA allows for district court jurisdiction only in two very narrow situаtions involving enforcement of compensation orders:
If an operator fails to pay an award of disability benefits for which he is liable, the successful claimant or the Secretary may bring an action in district court to enforce the order. See 33 U.S.C. § 921(d). Moreover, the Secretary may bring an action to enforce a lien against an operator who fails to makе payments to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. 30 U.S.C. § 934(b)(4)(A). See also 33 U.S.C. § 918 (collection of defaulted payments).
The plaintiff railroads’ best argument here is to contend that the BLBA clearly and unquestionably excludes railroads from its operation and that therefore the Secretary has patently violated his authority. The statute, however, far from clearly excluding railroads, expressly encompasses not only mine operators in the traditional sense but also “any independent contractor performing services or construction at [a] mine.” 30 U.S.C. § 802(d). This expanded definition does not clearly exclude railroads, especially when viewed in conjunction with the amended definition of “miners” which includes “an individual who works or has worked in ... transportation in or around a coal mine ....” 30 U.S.C. § 902(d). On *1248 this point, the district court went beyond the statute and relied primarily on Senate Report No. 95-209, which states that the definition of miner “does not contemplate inclusion of those workеrs employed by a railroad .... ” The court found that this statement was confirmed in a remark on the Senate floor by Senator Randolph, 123 Cong.Rec. 24,239 (1978). Finally, the district court reasoned:
If Congress had intended the 1978 amendment to include employees from other industries such as railroads, all Congress had to do was say so. It’s just that simple. To the contrary; an all-inclusive amendment was introduсed in Congress in 1972 to provide Black Lung benefits to any individual employed in any industry who contracted Black Lung. This amendment was not enacted. Montel v. Weinberger,546 F.2d 679 (6th Cir.1976).
App. 342. 3
The district court’s reliance upon Senate Report 95-209 and Senator Randolph’s statement appears somewhat misplaced. The legislative history indicates that the Senate bill was not passed and that in lieu thereof the House bill was enacted. 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 237. House Conference Report No. 95-864 accompanying the finally enacted legislation explains:
The conference substitute conforms generally to the Senate amendment with an amendment to clarify that transportation and construction workers are covered only to the extent they work in or around a coal mine and are exposed to coal dust. The conference substitute elsewhere provides that coal mine construction and transportation employers who are not also mine operators shall not be obligated to purchase insurance for the payment of claims under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. However, the conference substitute elsewhere also provides that coal mine construction and transportation employers who are not also mine operators shall be individually liable for payment of approved claims in appropriate cases. (See section 7, which amends the Act to require such employers to secure a bond or otherwise guarantee the payment of such claims once approved.)
1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 309 (emphasis added).
The express language of the statute, the legislative intent expressed in the conference report accompanying the BLBA, and the express grants of authority to the Secretary of Labor in 30 U.S.C. §§ 932 and 957, reveal that the Secretary has considerable discretion in making initial determinations of BLBA applicability, such as the interpretations incorporated in the guidelines challenged here.
Although the issue of whether the Secretary has correctly exercised his rulemaking authority and other discretion is not properly before us, 4 the statutory scheme reveals that there has been no clear overreaching of administrative authority as would warrant the exercise of mandamus or other extraordinary authority by the district court.
It is true, as the district court pointed out, that Congress rejected proposed amendments which would have extended BLBA benefits very brоadly to any industry whose working conditions might cause
*1249
pneumoconiosis in its employees.
Montel v. Weinberger,
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for want of subject mattеr jurisdiction.
Notes
. The BLBA establishes a program for payment of benefits to miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis (black lung disease) and to their survivors. See
Lawson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
any individual who works or has worked in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility in the extraction or preparation of coal. Such term also includes an individual who works or has worked in coal mine construction or transportation in or around a coal mine, to the extent such individual was exposed to coal dust as a result of such employment.
Id. § 2(b); 30 U.S.C. § 902(d) (Supp.1977).
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977, Pub.L. 95-164, amended the definition of “operator” as well, adding to “any owner, lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or supervises a coal mine” the phrase “or any independent contractor performing services or construction at such mine.” Id. § 102(b); 30 U.S.C. § 802 (Supp.1977).
Based on these amendments, the Department of Labor issued guidelines defining “the transportation of coal” for the purposes of determining eligibility under the BLBA:
Transportation of coal includes the transportation of coal usually performed by a coal mine operator, transportation from extraction site to preparation plant or tipple, and any transportation of сoal up to the time when the extraction and preparation of the coal has been completed or the time when the extracted coal enters into the stream of commerce.
Thus, persons engaged in transportation of coal from a mine site to the ultimate consumer of the coal, or in functions integral to that activity, would not be cоvered, even if part of their time is spent in or around the mine site. However, those engaged in transport functions between the extraction site and the tipple would be covered where their work is integral or necessary to the preparation or extraction process.
App. 155 (Revised Chap. 2-600, Coal Mine (BLBA) Procedures Manual, BLBA Tr. No. 81-3). The railroads contend that this interpretation of the BLBA is erroneous.
. Section 921(a) provides that a compensation order becomes final 30 days after it is filed in the Office of the Deputy Commission “unless proceedings for the suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted as provided by subdivision (b) of this section.” 33 U.S.C. § 921(a). More importantly, section 921(b)(3) provides: “[t]he [Benefits Review] Board shall be authorized to hear and determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact taken by any party in interest from decisions with respect to claims of employees under this chapter and the extensions thereof.” 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3) (emphasis added). Finally, section 921(e) states that: “[proceedings for suspending, setting aside, or enforcing a compensation order, whether rejecting a сlaim or making an award, shall not be instituted otherwise than as provided in this section and section 918 of this title.” 33 U.S.C. § 921(e). Section 918 establishes district court jurisdiction for the specific purpose of collecting defaulted compensation payments. This limited grant of district court authority obviously does not apply in this case since no railroad employee claimant has yet been awarded benefits.
The BLBA adopted these adjudication procedures of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901,
et seq.
for processing BLBA claims, 30 U.S.C. § 932(a).
See Director of Office of Workers’ Compensation Program v. National Mines Corp.,
. The district court also opined that extensive federal legislation already fully protected injured and disabled railroad emplоyees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.; the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq.; and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq. None of these acts indicate any intention to preclude additional protections or benefits such as those provided by the BLBA. The mere existence of these three acts does not suggest a patent violation of authority on the Secretary’s part.
. Compare
Cumberland Capital Corp.
v.
Harris,