Appellants, three environmental citizens organizations (hereinafter referred to collectively as SOCM),1 brought this action alleging that the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) and the Director of the Office of Surface Mining (the Director)2 had unlawfully failed to implement and enforce the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act), 30 U.S.C. Secs. 1201-1328 (Supp. V 1981).3 SOCM claimed that the Secretary unlawfully withdrew a regulation construing an exemption from the Act known as the "two-acre exemption," and that the Secretary failed to enforce the Act against miners that were improperly claiming this exemption. Appellants raise two issues on appeal. First, they contest the district court's ruling that venue for the claims against the Secretary for failure to perform mandatory duties was improper under the venue provision found in section 520(c)(1) of the Act. Second, appellants dispute the court's holding that the challenge to the withdrawal of the regulation was mooted by the agency's subsequent promulgation of a regulation covering the same subject matter. We agree with the reasoning of United States District Judge Charles R. Richey and, accordingly, affirm both district court orders.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a comprehensive program designed to "protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1202(a). Title II of the Act creates the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) and delegates to the Secretary of the Interior, acting through OSM, primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act.4 Title V of the Act sets out detailed environmental protection performance standards for surface mining operations. No entity may engage in a surface mining or reclamation operation without first obtaining from the appropriate regulatory authority a permit assuring compliance with these standards. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1265. In Title IV of the Act, Congress established the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (Fund). All mine operators are required to pay into the Fund a fee based on tonnage of coal mined. The money in the Fund is to be used to defray the costs of restoring lands damaged by mining activities. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1232. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement these provisions of the Act.

Congress specifically exempted from the terms of the Act "the extraction of coal for commercial purposes where the surface mining operation affects two acres or less." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1278(2) (the two-acre exemption). Thus, miners affecting less than two acres need not obtain permits or pay fees into the Fund. The dispute in this case arises out of the Secretary's actions with respect to the implementation and enforcement of this exemption.

The OSM first promulgated a regulation construing the applicability of the two-acre exemption in March 1979. The regulation excluded from the scope of the two-acre exemption "any ... operation conducted by a person who affects or intends to affect more than two acres at physically related sites, or any ... operation conducted by a person who affects or intends to affect more than two acres at physically unrelated sites within one year." 30 C.F.R. Sec. 700.11(b) (1982).

On November 27, 1979, OSM suspended the portion of the regulation that applied to "physically unrelated sites." 44 Fed.Reg. 67,942 (1979).5 Subsequently, in January 1981, the Secretary published a second two-acre rule. This rule, which supplemented the remaining portion of the first rule, adopted specific criteria for determining whether mining operations that are not physically connected are nevertheless related for purposes of determining whether they are exempt. 46 Fed.Reg. 7,902 (1981).

The second two-acre rule never went into effect. First, in compliance with a memorandum issued by President Reagan,6 the Secretary postponed the effective date of the second two-acre rule to March 30, 1981. 46 Fed.Reg. 10,707 (1981). On March 23, 1981, however, OSM suspended the second two-acre rule, without notice and comment, pending the outcome of rulemaking.7 46 Fed.Reg. 18,023 (1981). On April 3, 1981, OSM cancelled the March 23 notice of suspension and deferred the effective date of the rule until May 4, 1981. The notice also solicited comments on a proposed indefinite suspension of the rule.8 46 Fed.Reg. 20,211 (1981). After two more extensions of its effective date, the second two-acre rule was withdrawn. 46 Fed.Reg. 40,650, 40,651 (1981).

Appellants filed this action in the district court on September 15, 1981. Count I of the complaint alleged that the suspension and withdrawal of the second two-acre rule was arbitrary and capricious and violated the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 (1982). Appellants sought an order reinstating that regulation. Counts II and III of the complaint alleged that the appellees violated the Act by failing to perform inspections, institute enforcement procedures, and collect reclamation fees at hundreds of mining operations that were evading the terms of the Act by improperly claiming the two-acre exemption.9 Jurisdiction for the action was based on sections 520(a)(2) and 526(a)(1) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(a)(2) and 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1276(a)(1). The complaint also alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1337, 1361, 2201, and 2202 (1976 & Supp. V 1981).

On July 8, 1982, the district court granted appellees' motion to dismiss counts II and III for lack of venue.10 The court ruled that the claims alleged in counts II and III were subject to the specific venue provision in section 520(c)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(c)(1). Therefore, the court agreed that SOCM could bring these claims only in the districts where the mining operations that were allegedly evading the Act were located. Since none of these operations were located in the District of Columbia, the court found that venue was improper. Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Watt, No. 81-2238 (D.D.C. July 8, 1982), J.A. at 19.

The district court then directed the parties to file cross motions for summary judgment on count I, the only remaining claim. On August 2, 1982, three days after SOCM filed its motion, OSM promulgated a new two-acre rule (the third two-acre regulation).11 The district court ruled that the adoption of the third two-acre rule mooted the controversy. By order dated October 28, 1982, count I was dismissed. Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Watt, 558 F. Supp. 22 (D.D.C.1982).

SOCM appeals both district court orders.

We first review the district court's dismissal of counts II and III for lack of venue. The issue before us is the proper interpretation and application of the specific venue requirement contained in the citizens' suit provision of the Act.

The citizens' suit provision authorizes private persons to bring two types of civil actions to compel compliance with the Act. Section 520(a)(1), 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(a)(1), states that persons having an interest which may be adversely affected may bring a civil action against any entity (including any governmental authority) for violations of the Act or any rule, regulation, order or permit issued thereunder. Section 520(a)(2) provides for actions against the Secretary, or other regulatory authority, for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties.12 The claims asserted in counts II and III fall clearly within the purview of section 520(a)(2).

The venue provision at issue, found in section 520(c)(1), provides: "Any action respecting a violation of this chapter or the regulations thereunder may be brought only in the judicial district in which the surface coal mining operation complained of is located." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(c)(1).13 The district court found, and appellees contend, that this venue provision applies on its face to citizens' actions brought under section 520(a)(2). The district court further concluded the venue provision applies to actions seeking to compel the Secretary to perform duties required by the Act brought pursuant to any other jurisdictional statute. Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Watt, No. 81-2238 (D.D.C. July 8, 1982).A.

To ascertain the intended scope of any statutory provision, we look first to the language used by Congress. CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 377, 101 S. Ct. 2813, 2820, 69 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1981); Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S. Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L. Ed. 2d 766 (1980); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S. Ct. 192, 194, 61 L. Ed. 442 (1917). We ascribe to words their plain and ordinary meaning absent convincing reasons to the contrary. Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 580-81, 95 S. Ct. 1180, 1184, 43 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1975); Symons v. Chrysler Corp. Loan Guarantee Board, 670 F.2d 238, 241 (D.C.Cir.1981).14 By its terms, the venue provision is broad in scope: it applies to "any action respecting a violation of [this Act]." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(c)(1) (emphasis added). The words do not restrict the venue provision's application to specific actions based either on their subject matter or on their jurisdictional underpinnings.

Appellants assert, however, that other language in section 520(c)(1) evidences Congress's intent to limit venue only in actions against individual mining operations. They submit, first, that because the venue provision refers to a "violation" of the Act, it applies only to actions under section 520(a)(1), which authorizes suits against entities that are "alleged to be in 'violation' of [the Act]." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(a)(1) (emphasis added). In their view, "violation" refers only to infractions of the Act by mining operations. They point out that "violation" is used several times in the Act in reference to mine operators or mining operations.15 Relying on the principle that like terms should be given the same meaning throughout a statute, SOCM suggests that only a mine operator can be in violation of the Act.

Appellants' argument is based solely on the location of the term violation in relation to mining operations. The location of a word, however, need not restrict its plain meaning. While it is undeniably important to consider the context of statutory language when construing its meaning, the words themselves are the best indicator of legislative intent. See AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 570 F.2d 1030, 1036 (D.C.Cir.1978).

The plain meaning of "violation" indicates that it encompasses the Secretary's, as well as miners', actions. A statute is violated when one transgresses its terms. When the Secretary fails to perform a duty required by the Act, he has transgressed the Act's affirmative mandate; that is, he has "violated" the Act. The Secretary's functions and responsibilities, with respect to the issues in this case, derive solely from the Act. The Secretary's alleged failure to perform these duties can thus only be interpreted as a violation of the Act.

Further, a close examination of the Act does not support appellants' contention that "violation" appears only in connection with mine operators. The term is also used in section 520(b)(2), which specifically refers to an action against the Secretary brought pursuant to section 520(a)(2) for failure to perform a mandatory duty under the Act. Section 520(b)(2) requires that plaintiffs give sixty days' notice before commencing such an action except "where the violation or order complained of constitutes an imminent threat to the health or safety of the plaintiff ...." 30 U.S.C. 1270(b)(2) (emphasis added). Moreover, in subsection 520(f), the Act provides for an action for damages by any person who is injured "through the violation by any operator of any rule, regulation, order or permit issued pursuant to [the Act]." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(f). The modification of "violation" with the phrase "by any operator" indicates that Congress did not intend "violation" to refer only to operators.

Thus, both the plain meaning and the contextual use of the disputed term lead to a conclusion that the Secretary's failure to perform required duties is a violation of the Act. We therefore do not believe that the use of "violation" in the venue provision indicates a congressional intention to limit the application of that provision to actions against mining operations under subsection 520(a)(1).

To bolster its position that the venue provision applies only to actions against miners, SOCM points to additional language in subsection 520(c)(1). The provision states that actions "may be brought only in the judicial district in which the surface mining operation complained of is located." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1270(c)(1) (emphasis added). SOCM concludes that this language indicates Congress's intent to apply the limited venue provision only where the suit "complains of" the activities of a particular mining operation.

We must read the language cited by SOCM in the context of the entire provision. Section 520(c)(1) limits venue in "any action respecting a violation of this Act." This all-encompassing language evidences an intent that the provision be applied broadly. It is unlikely, therefore, that Congress added the cited phrase for the purpose of limiting the provision's scope.

In light of the lack of extrinsic evidence explaining the intended purpose of this language, we accept the approach apparently adopted by the district court as the most reasonable effectuation of the entire provision. See Symons, 670 F.2d at 242. In the context of an action against the Secretary for failure to perform mandatory duties, the district court apparently concluded that the cited phrase directs courts to look to the underlying factual situation in determining the proper venue. In the instant case, for example, SOCM "complains of" noncompliance by the Secretary; however, these claims are ultimately based on the underlying allegation that hundreds of mine operators are evading the terms of the Act. Thus, even in the context of the Secretary's failure to perform mandatory duties, the claim at bottom is referenced to specific mining operations. The district court's interpretation gives meaning to the cited words while adhering to the evident intent that the provision be broadly applied.16

This view of the venue requirement comports with a congressional preference for local judicial review where the action potentially involves site-specific or local conditions. This preference is discernable in numerous other venue provisions throughout the Act. For example, section 526(a)(1), 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1276(a)(1), provides that actions regarding the Secretary's approval or disapproval of a state program shall be subject to review in the district that includes the capital of that state.

While the appellants' suggestion that it is in the interest of judicial economy and otherwise practical to bring a single action in this district to remedy an allegedly nationwide problem is attractive, Congress's plain language does not allow this result. There are compelling reasons supporting Congress's apparent preference to have this type of dispute adjudicated in the various districts in which the noncomplying mines are located: it allows the operators more easily to become involved, it allows consideration of site-specific factors, and it distributes more evenly the judicial workload.17

In short, we cannot say that the language relied on by SOCM indicates an intent to apply the specific venue requirement only in actions involving discrete mining operations.

Alternatively, SOCM contends that even if section 520(c)(1) applies to actions against the Secretary for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties brought under section 520(a)(2), it does not restrict venue in actions, such as this one, in which jurisdiction is derived from a source other than the citizens' suit provision of the Act.18

Appellants' assertion requires a strained reading of section 520(c)(1). In effect, SOCM asks us to read the first portion of the provision as "any action pursuant to this section," rather than "any action respecting a violation of [this Act]." The plain language of the provision contradicts SOCM's contention.

The legislative history, while sparse, supports our reading of the venue requirement. Congress expressly rejected language that would have required the result appellants seek. In the Senate version of the Act, the venue provision stated "any action pursuant to this section may be brought only in the judicial district in which the surface coal mining operation complained of is located." S. 7, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 420(c)(1), 123 Cong.Rec. 15,793 (1977) (emphasis added).19 This language clearly indicated an intent that the specific venue requirement be applied only to actions brought pursuant to the citizens' suit provision. Congress, however, adopted the broader provision that originally appeared in the House bill.20 Although there is no explanation for the adoption of the broader provision, we may not assume that Congress took this action "for no reason at all." Ashton v. Pierce, 716 F.2d 56, 62 (D.C.Cir.1983). Congress's rejection of the more narrow Senate version is indicative of an intent to apply the restrictive venue provision to all actions.

Thus, both the plain language of the provision and the legislative history lead us to conclude that Congress intended to restrict venue in all actions regarding violations of the Act, whatever the jurisdictional basis.

Nevertheless, appellants assert that the savings clause in subsection 520(e)21 preserves their right to bring actions grounded on the Secretary's violation of this Act through other jurisdictional statutes. Such actions, they contend, are governed by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391, and are not limited by the venue provision in section 520(c)(1).

The legislative history provides no evidence that by enacting the savings clause Congress intended to limit the application of the specific venue provision in section 520(c)(1). The House Committee report, in an apparent reference to the savings clause, stated only that the citizens' suit provision "does not affect any rights including the right to bring suit or remedies that the person bringing the suit may have under any other law." H.R.Rep. No. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, pp. 593, 626. The report makes no mention of the venue provision.

The only other relevant evidence in the legislative history concerns a change in the language of the savings clause. The savings clause in the Act as initially reported by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs specified that the citizens' suit section was "the sole basis of jurisdiction for suits under subsection (a)(2) ... and failure to comply with the notice requirement of subsection (b)(2) shall require dismissal of the action." H. 2, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 520(c)(1), 123 Cong.Rec. 12,672 (1977).22 The deletion of the limiting language from the final version of the Act indicates only that Congress did not wish to restrict rights conferred by other statutes or laws to bring actions against the Secretary.23 It does not manifest a congressional intent to qualify the plain meaning of the venue provision. Applying the restrictive venue clause to actions against the Secretary for noncompliance with this Act, regardless of the jurisdictional basis, will not eviscerate the savings clause. This venue provision does not restrict any rights or remedies appellants might have in the absence of the citizens' suit provision: it merely specifies the appropriate court in which to compel the Secretary to perform mandatory duties under the Act.24

We reject SOCM's contention that this court's interpretation of a similar citizens' suit provision in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C.Cir.1975), mandates the opposite conclusion. In Train, this court ruled that the limitations contained within the citizens' suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1365 (1976 & Supp. V 1981) (FWPCA), applied only to actions brought pursuant to that provision and not to actions that would have been maintainable in the absence of that provision. 510 F.2d at 701. In contrast to the venue requirement in this case, the limitations contained in the citizens' suit provision at issue in Train by their terms applied only to actions brought under that provision.25

Moreover, we are guided by the basic principle of statutory construction that a statute dealing with a narrow, specific subject typically prevails over a general statute. "Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-51, 94 S. Ct. 2474, 2482, 41 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1974) (citations omitted). See Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153, 96 S. Ct. 1989, 1992, 48 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1976) (quoting and explaining Morton ). We thus conclude that in any action against the Secretary for failure to perform duties required by this Act, whether brought pursuant to the citizens' suit provision's grant of jurisdiction or under any other jurisdictional statute, the specific venue provision in 520(c)(1) prevails over the general venue rules of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391.

Finally, we must also reject appellants' "pendent venue" theory. On occasion, where venue exists for the principal cause of action, courts have agreed to adjudicate closely related claims even if they lacked an independent source of venue. See, e.g., Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 1041, 1042 (D.D.C.1971). The rationale for this "pendent venue" theory is that it is more efficient for one court to adjudicate all claims involving substantially the same proofs. See 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3808 (1976). In this case, the principal claim, count I, involves a procedural challenge under the APA to the suspension and withdrawal of the two-acre regulation. The allegedly "pendent" claims concern the Secretary's actions with regard to certain mandates within the Act. The proofs necessary to adjudicate these three claims are wholly dissimilar. We cannot conclude that these claims are so closely related that they justify adoption of a pendent venue theory.

In sum, we conclude that SOCM's claims against the Secretary for failure to perform mandatory duties are governed by the Act's specific venue provisions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal, for lack of venue, of counts II and III of the complaint.

SOCM asserts that the district court erred in dismissing as moot its challenge to the Secretary's suspension and withdrawal of the second two-acre rule. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the claim is moot. Integral to our decision is that the promulgation of a third two-acre rule, with opportunity for notice and comment, provided effective relief for the alleged illegality.26

Courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that have been "mooted by subsequent developments ...." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1949, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968) (footnote omitted). In order to dismiss a claim as moot, two conditions must be met. First, the court must find that " 'there is no reasonable expectation ...' that the alleged violation will recur." County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1979) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S. Ct. 894, 897, 97 L. Ed. 1303 (1953). Second, it must be clear that "interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." 440 U.S. at 631, 99 S.Ct. at 1383.

SOCM makes no claim that the alleged violation will recur. Thus, the sole issue is whether subsequent events, in this case the promulgation of the new rule, "completely eradicates" the effects of the allegedly unlawful suspension and withdrawal of the second rule.27

SOCM complains that the Secretary's suspension and withdrawal of the second two-acre rule was unlawful because it violated the notice and comment requirements of the APA.28 Thus, appellants challenge only the procedure by which the rule was withdrawn. The primary effect of this procedural defect was to deprive appellants of the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 680 F.2d 810, 814-15 (D.C.Cir.1982).29

Appellants received the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the rulemaking process concerning the two-acre exemption when the Secretary promulgated the third two-acre rule in accordance with the notice and comment requirements of the APA.30 As in Natural Resources Defense Council, we conclude that appellants have received all the relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the allegedly unlawful rulemaking.31 Thus, SOCM's claim is moot.

We reject appellants' assertion that promulgation of the third rule did not moot the claim because the district court had the power to provide additional relief by reinstating the second rule from the date it was to become effective until the effective date of the new rule. SOCM contends that the allegedly improper withdrawal caused "rampant abuses of the two-acre exemption." Reply Brief for Appellants at 20. It argues that these abuses can be remedied only if the Secretary enforces the Act against operators that improperly claimed the exemption by collecting reclamation fees and requiring compliance with the Act's standards. According to SOCM, reinstatement of the second rule would provide a simple means for determining which operators were violating the Act. We believe this argument mischaracterizes the deprivation caused by a procedural defect in the withdrawal of a rule. As noted above, the loss appellants suffered was the loss of opportunity to participate. They have now received that opportunity.

Even if we were to characterize the deprivation caused by an alleged procedural defect in withdrawing a rule to include the potential beneficial effects the existence of the rule would have insured, appellants' claim would still be moot. The withdrawal of the second two-acre rule, which had never even gone into effect, was not necessarily a direct cause of unlawful claims of exemption. Moreover, even in the absence of the second two-acre rule, the Secretary was not powerless to police such unlawful claims.32 Thus, reinstatement of the rule would not necessarily provide additional relief for the alleged deprivation. The possibility that retroactive reinstatement will cure the alleged widespread abuses of the Act is far too attenuated to support a conclusion that appellants have not yet received all the meaningful relief available.33 The district court's order dismissing count I must be affirmed.

We conclude that SOCM's claims against the Secretary for failure to perform duties required by the Act (counts II and III of the complaint) are subject to the specific venue requirement in section 520(c)(1). We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of these claims for lack of venue. We also affirm the district court's holding that appellants' claim of improper rulemaking in count I was rendered moot by the Secretary's subsequent procedurally correct promulgation of a superseding rule.

It is so ordered.