Case Name: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Intervenor
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-07
Citations: 393 F.3d 1315
Docket Number: No. 02-1294
Parties: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Intervenor.
Judges: Before: SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 393
Pages: 1315–1316

Head Matter:
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Intervenor.
No. 02-1294.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Jan. 7, 2005.
Angus MacBeth, Timothy Kenly Webster, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Richard E. Ayres, Barry S. Neuman, Law Office of Barry S. Neuman, Thomas Allen Lorenzen, Attorney, Steven Edward Rusak, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Sheila A. Millar, Peter Lawrence De La Cruz, Jean-Cyril Walker, Keller & Heck-man, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before: SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM.
On reconsideration, we find it unnecessary to decide whether § 307(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9), requires a court to vacate erroneous action of the Environmental Protection Agency. Even if § 307(d)(9) gives a court discretion to remand without vacating, we would vacate EPA's rule for the reasons given in Judge Randolph's concurring opinion, in which Judge Sentelle joined. See Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1375 (D.C.Cir.2004). Subpart III of Part II of the per curiam opinion, 374 F.3d at 1373-74, is therefore withdrawn. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is denied.
So ordered.