Eastern Oregon Mining Assoc., 273 Or App at 262. In so concluding, the court erred. As we explained in Couey, the focus of ORS 14.175(3) is whether the general type or category of challenge at issue is likely to evade being fully litigated — including by appellate courts — in the future, not whether a specific case might avoid becoming moot through expedited consideration or some other mechanism: “The fact that there is a possibility that a particular case could obtain expedited consideration is beside the point. ORS 14.175 applies to types or categories of cases in which it is ‘likely’ that such challenges will avoid judicial review.” 357 Or at 482. DEQ argues that, in any event, the type or category of case at issue is not the sort that is likely 46 F2d 568, 582-83 (DC Cir 1980) (<HOLDING>). DEQ asserts that “a review of this court’s
recognizing a mootness exception for abortion litigation because pregnancy  truly could be capable of repetition yet evading review  holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review holding that we have no difficulty concluding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permit was capable of repetition yet evading review holding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permits originally issued eight years earlier was capable of repetition yet evading review holding that we may review moot cases that either 1 present issues of substantial public interest or 2 are capable of repetition yet evade review