out its duties to preserve competition and protect the public interest. Where, as in this case, there is no evidence (or indeed, allegation) of bad faith on the part of the agency, and the agency has demonstrated a reasonable need for delay, “we have no reason to think that judicial intervention would advance either fairness or Congress’s policy objectives.” In re Barr Labs., 930 F.2d at 76. As the TRAC cases make clear, however, we do not grant the agency a free pass; we expect that the Board’s effort to devise new standards will be undertaken expeditiously, and that the agency will resume its acceptance and review of merger applications promptly at the end of the 15-month moratorium. See also In re United Mine Workers of America Int’l Union, 190 F.3d 545, 550-51, 556 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Otherwise, as the Board correctly
holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus holding public standing doctrine permitted action for emergency writ of mandamus holding mine safety and health administration violated express statutory timetable for issuing regulation but instead of issuing writ of mandamus retaining jurisdiction over case to assure final agency action without undue further delay holding that circuit court violated the essential requirements of the law in not issuing an order to show cause after receiving a facially sufficient petition for writ of certiorari holding that a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted