Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. E.P.A.
| Decision Date | 07 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1294.,02-1294. |
| Citation | 393 F.3d 1315 |
| Parties | HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
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 & Heckman, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before: SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed 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 Subpart III of Part II of the per curiam opinion, 374 F.3d at 1373-74, is therefore withdrawn.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.
While the court on rehearing no longer holds that the Clean Air Act requires vacatur of the challenged rule authorizing the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, the court continues "to brush[ ] aside our exhaustive caselaw" on whether an erroneous rule should be remanded or vacated. Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1380 (D.C.Cir.2004) (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing cases). Until the en banc court endorses the view expressed in Judge Randolph's concurring opinion regarding vacatur, see id. at 1375 (Randolph, J., concurring), binding precedent requires a remand when vacatur might be unnecessarily disruptive, see id. at 1379-81 (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Again, the court on rehearing declines to "engage the prudential inquiry our case law requires," id. at 1380, ignoring that clarification by the agency may render the error harmless and that vacatur risks disruption to the regulatory scheme, including harm to the environment as a result of widespread use of ozone-depleting chemicals, see id. at 1379-80. Accordingly, while I concur in the withdrawal of Subpart III of Part II of the per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...the entry of a product into a market in which [the plaintiff] competes" causes the plaintiff injury), as amended by, 393 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Washtech has satisfied the causation element of competitor standing.Although the Government......
-
Ass'n for Cmty. Affiliated Plans v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury
...of a product into a market in which [plaintiff] competes" causes plaintiff injury), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 393 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Superior California v. Babbitt, 979 F.Supp. 893, 899 (D.D.C. 1997). The Departments' argument that trace......
-
Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.P.A.
...Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1375 (D.C.Cir.2004) (Randolph, J., concurring), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 393 F.3d 1315 (D.C.Cir.2005); Schurz Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 982 F.2d 1043, 1057 (7th Cir. 3. The post-argument filings in this case do not, as the dissent supposes......
-
Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...require speculation about the purchasing decisions of third parties not before the court"), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 393 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ; see also Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Shalala, 91 F.3d 1493, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding the traceability requirement satisfied ......