HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Intervenor, 393 F.3d 1315

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Part II of the per curiam opinion, 374 F.3d at 1373-74, is therefore withdrawn.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.