Petitioner

v. Environmental Protection Agency and Lee M. Zeldin, Administrator, U.S. EPA,

Respondents ------------------------------ City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri, et al., Intervenors ------------------------------ Consolidated with 23-1181, 23-1183, 23-1190, 23-1191, 23-1193, 23-1195, 23-1199, 23-1200, 23-1201, 23-1202, 23-1203, 23-1205, 23-1206, 23-1207, 23-1208, 23-1209, 23-1211, 23-1306, 23-1307, 23-1314, 23-1315, 23-1316, 23-1317, 25-1054, 25-1055, 25-1057 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-1157 September Term, 2024

No. 24-1172 EPA-89FR23526 United States Steel Corporation,

Petitioner

v. Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondents ------------------------------ Air Alliance Houston, et al., Intervenors ------------------------------ Consolidated with 24-1176

BEFORE: Wilkins, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

ORDER AND STATEMENTS

Upon consideration of the April 14, 2025 order holding these cases in abeyance, which indicated that the reasons for the order would be issued at a later date, attached are statements of Circuit Judge Rao and Circuit Judge Wilkins. Circuit Judge Walker joins in the statement of Circuit Judge Rao.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Selena R. Gancasz Deputy Clerk

Page 2 RAO, Circuit Judge: EPA has begun reviewing its rules in light of the priorities and policies of the new administration. For the rule challenged here, Federal “Good Neighbor Plan” for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 Fed. Reg. 36654 (June 5, 2023), the agency has identified specific issues that have prompted it to reconsider its previous approach. EPA attests that it plans to propose a new rule addressing these problems and has informed the court it intends to complete any final rulemaking by fall 2026. The agency has requested the court either remand the rule or, in the alternative, hold the challenges in abeyance pending this reconsideration.

The court correctly holds these cases in abeyance. Because a predictable flurry of similar motions occurs during each presidential transition, I write to explain the considerations that guide this court in exercising its discretion to hold a case in abeyance. Furthermore, I suggest some reasons why “remanding” a rule, without any consideration of the merits, is inappropriate in these circumstances.

I.

When a court holds a case in abeyance, it stays all proceedings until the court directs otherwise. Basardh v. Gates, 545 F.3d 1068, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). A court’s authority to stay proceedings derives from its inherent power to manage its docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Whether to hold a case in abeyance is thus a matter of discretion and judgment, which must take into account the optimal use of judicial resources as well as the “competing interests” of the parties. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). There are several circumstances in which abeyance may be justified. See Ctr. for Biolog