FINAL ORDER
A final order of dismissal for mootness is entered.
FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR MOOTNESS
1. For administrative review is the denial by the Department of Natural Resources (the "Department") to transfer, under 312 IAC 16-3 and IC 14-37, Permit 19,257 from Pioneer Oil Co., Inc. ("Pioneer Oil") to Oil & Industrial Service Co., Inc. ("Oil & Industrial") to operate a well for oil and gas purposes.
2. An issue is moot if the issue is no longer "live" or if the parties "lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Bartholomew County Hospital v. Ryan (1982), Ind. App., 440 N.E. 2d 754, 757, quoting United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty (1980), 445 U.S. 388, 396.
3. A general application of the doctrine of mootness would preclude a determination of the substantive issues raised in this administrative proceeding. On or about December 28, 2001, the Department approved the transfer of Permit 19,257 from Pioneer Oil to another person, Mark Abbey. Consideration of transfer of Permit 19,257 from Pioneer Oil to Oil & Industrial is no longer "live."
4. The "public interest exception" is a deviation from general application of the doctrine of mootness. The exception "may be invoked only upon the confluence of three elements: the issue involves a question of great public importance, which is likely to recur in a context which will continue to evade review." Ridenour v. Furness, (1987), Ind. App., 504 N.E. 2d 336, 342, quoting BARTHOLOMEW at 759.
5. The first element of the public interest exception is satisfied. The question is one of great public importance. Oil & Industrial contests the Department's current application of 312 IAC 16-3-3. Under the application, the Department would never issue a permit to a person who has either (1) had a permit revoked under 312 IAC 16-3-9; or, (2) been issued a notice of violation and failed to abate the violation within 60 days after the deadline for abatement. Without making a determination of the propriety of the Department's application under 312 IAC 16 and IC 14-37, it is of sufficiently broad consequence to demonstrate a question of great public importance.
6. The record also appears to support the second element of the public interest exception. Oil & Industrial would most likely receive a denial from the Department, on the same basis the attempted transfer of Permit 19,257 was denied, if it ever seeks the grant or transfer of another license for oil and gas purposes.
7. The third element of the public interest exception is not satisfied. The issue is not likely to continue to evade review. Oil & Industrial can seek the transfer or grant of another license for oil and gas purposes. If denied, the parties can fully adjudicate the propriety of the denial.
8. Another alternative is also available. The Natural Resources Commission has adopted at 312 IAC 3-1-15 a mechanism by which a person may, in writing, request the Department to interpret a statute or rule that it administers. The Department's interpretation is then subject to administrative review by the Commission. Oil & Industrial could apply 312 IAC 3-1-15 to seek a quasi-declaratory judgment.
[VOLUME 9, PAGE 58]
9. Similar applications of case law caused the Commission to determine other administrative determinations were moot in Laverty and Citizens Coalition of Beverly Shores v. Town of Beverly Shores, 9 Caddnar 24 (2001); and, in Ogden Dunes v. DNR, Beverly Shores and NIPSCO, 4 Caddnar 31 (1987).