
    Milton J. SHAPP et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William E. SIMON et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 3-8.
    Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
    Sept. 17, 1975.
    Lawrence E. Silver, Howard M. Snyder, Deputy Attys. Gen., and Robert P. Kane, Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellants.
    
      Rex E. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanley D. Rose and Allen W. Hausman, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees-Government.
    Robert M. Landis, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Atlantic Richfield Co.
    Grace C. Kennedy and Robert M. Dubbs, Gen. Counsel, St. Davids, Pa., for appellee Sun Oil Co.
    Hoyt H. Harmon, Jr., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., for appellee Gulf Oil Corp.
    Alfred W. Córtese, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Amoco Oil Co.
    Fred W. Drogula, Ginsburg, Feldman & Bress, Washington, D. C., Teitelman & Herring, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Ashland Oil, Inc.
    Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhodes, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Phillips Petroleum Co.
    Richard G. Schneider and Stephen A. Stack, Jr., Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., C. Lansing Hays, Jr., Otto C. Kitsinger, II, and Robert A. Cohen, Hays, Landsman & Head, New York City, for appellee Getty Oil Co.
    L. Carter Anderson, Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Ag-way Petroleum Corp. and Cities Service Oil Co.
    Edmund K. Trent, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Pennzoil Co.
    William Simon, Keith E. Pugh, Jr., and John R. Fornaciari, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D. C., John T. Clary, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Shell Oil Co.
    John G. Harkins, Jr., and Barbara W. Mather, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
    Peter R. McEnroe, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellee Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
    Edwin S. Mabry, Mabry & Gunn, Texas City, Tex., for appellee Tex. City Refining, Inc.
    Samuel E. Dennis, Meltzer & Schiffrin, Philadelphia, Pa., David F. Albright and Richard M. Kremen, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., for appellee Petroleum Marketing Corp.
    Thomas W. Johnston, Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings, Chicago, 111., Patrick T. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Kerr-McGee Corp.
    John C. Detweiler, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Mobil Oil Corp.
    Benjamin M. Quigg, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Exxon Corp.
    James J. Restivo, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee United Refining Co.
    John R. McConnell, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Amerada Hess Corp.
    Cecil E. Munn, Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Cravens & Munn, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee Champlin Petroleum Co.
    G. Thomas Miller, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellee Ag-way Petroleum Co.
    George P. Williams, III, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Union Oil Co. of Cal., Chevron Oil Co. and Sohio Petroleum Co.
    John E. Tuohy and G. Kenneth Handley, Cherry Hill, N. J., for appellee Texaco, Inc.
    Griffith B. Price and Edward N. Sherry, New York City, for appellee Continental Oil Co.
    William A. King, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Federal Energy Administration, Region III.
    Russell H. Smith, Tulsa, Okl., for appellee Cities Service Oil Co.
    Before TAMM, Chief Judge, and HASTIE and JOHNSON, Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The State and the Governor of Pennsylvania brought this suit to challenge the Federal Energy Administration’s allocation of motor gasoline among the states and certain related administrative procedures. The challenged actions had been taken under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. This controversy has now been rendered moot by the expiration of statutory authority for the entire program of federal control and allocation of petroleum products.

The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing. However, on this appeal from that decision, supervening mootness prevents us from reviewing the issue of standing.

The order dismissing the complaint for lack of standing is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the district court with direction to enter a new order of dismissal because the controversy has become moot.  