Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01618/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01618-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed July 3, 2001

No. 98-1497

State of Michigan,

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and

State of West Virginia, Division of

Environmental Protection,

Petitioners

v.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

New England Council, Inc., et al.,

Intervenors

On Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees

---------

Before Williams, Sentelle, and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: The Interstate Natural Gas Association of

America (hereinafter "INGAA" or "petitioner") moves for an

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 1 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $107,551.95 incurred

in connection with its challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regulation. See Michigan v. EPA, 213

F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Briefs with accompanying billing

records have been submitted by the petitioner, and the EPA

has filed its opposition. After examination of the billing

records and consideration of the EPA's objections, we find

that INGAA is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees but not

for the full amount sought. We conclude, for the reasons

stated below, that INGAA is entitled to an award in the

amount of $65,947.24.

I. BACKGROUND

In the underlying litigation, INGAA, a trade association

representing major interstate natural gas transmission companies in the United States, and other petitioners challenged

promulgation of the EPA's "NOx SIP Call" final rule which

mandated that 22 states and the District of Columbia revise

their state implementation plans ("SIPs") to reduce emission

of nitrogen oxides ("NOx"). The revisions were to be based

upon state-specific NOx emissions "budgets" established by

the EPA. For its part, INGAA contended that the EPA, in

its determination of the state NOx budgets, did not provide

adequate notice and opportunity for comment on the control

level assumed for large stationary internal combustion ("IC")

engines (hereinafter referred to as the "control level" issue).

Additionally, INGAA challenged the EPA's definition of large

IC engines (hereinafter referred to as the "cut-off" issue).

We agreed with INGAA on the "control level" issue and

remanded it to the EPA for further consideration, but we

upheld the EPA on the "cut-off" issue. Id. at 693-94.

II. ANALYSIS

INGAA now seeks an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to

Section 307(f) of the Clean Air Act, which provides:

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 2 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In any judicial proceeding under this section, the court

may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) whenever it determines that

such award is appropriate.

42 U.S.C. s 7607(f). In our discussion below, we consider

INGAA's fee petition and make certain deductions from it in

light of the "reasonable" and "appropriate" standards set

forth in the statute.

Fees under Section 307(f). The EPA argues that INGAA

is not entitled to attorneys' fees in this matter because it did

not achieve a sufficient degree of success in Michigan. See

Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 693-94 (1983); see

also Sierra Club v. EPA, 769 F.2d 796, 800 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

Of the two challenges made by INGAA to the EPA's NOx

SIP Call, the EPA argues that one, the IC engine "cut-off"

issue, was completely rejected by the Court, while the other,

the IC engine "control level" issue, was remanded, without

being vacated, for further consideration by the EPA and was

therefore a purely procedural victory insufficient to justify an

award of fees. The EPA further argues that even if it were

to be assumed that INGAA is eligible to receive a fee award

on the "control level" issue, since it lost on the "cut-off" issue

then any fee award should be reduced by 50% to reflect that

loss.

In reply, INGAA claims that fees should be awarded not

only for successful substantive challenges to rules, but also

for valid procedural claims, because if this were not the case

then "fees would become dependent on the essentially fortuitous presence or absence of a valid procedural claim" and "[i]t

would be counterproductive ... to deny attorneys' fees for

successful litigation to enforce" procedural regularity. Brief

of Petitioner at 5 (emphasis in original). INGAA further

claims that Kennecott Corp. v EPA, 804 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir.

1986), governs the outcome here because the facts in that

case "completely parallel" the one before us. In Kennecott,

according to INGAA, fees and costs were awarded to Kennecott in litigation establishing that the EPA did not provide

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 3 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

adequate notice and comment because certain data were not

provided during the notice and comment period.

The EPA argues in turn that the petitioner's reliance on

Kennecott is misplaced because in that case, unlike here, the

Court not only remanded the matter but also vacated the

challenged portion of the regulation. Instead, the EPA would

have us rely on Sierra Club v. EPA and Environmental

Defense Fund v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In

Sierra Club, fees were denied for a remanded issue where no

substantive relief was granted and the agency could possibly

justify its position with no reformulation of the challenged

rule. 769 F.2d at 806. And the EPA relies on the Court's

statement in Environmental Defense Fund that "a plaintiff

that has obtained a remand for further proceedings is not at

that point a 'prevailing party' for the purpose of collecting its

attorney's fee." 1 F.3d at 1257.

We note that the Court in Environmental Defense Fund,

after making the statement relied on by the EPA quoted

above, went on to explain that attorneys' fees may be awarded only if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds on the merits and

that the rationale behind this rule was to avoid awarding fees

for "corrective efforts that yield no real world benefit." Id. at

1257 (internal citation and quotation omitted). Unlike Sierra

Club, the underlying litigation in Environmental Defense

Fund, as here, concerned a lack of public notice and comment. Specifically, the merits panel there vacated an EPA

rule for want of notice and comment before promulgation.

Although the EPA opposed an award of attorneys' fees in

that case because it claimed, as it does here, that the petitioner's victory was "purely procedural," the Court stated that

even though the petitioner was not assured of being able to

change the EPA's proposed regulation, having the chance to

comment on the proposal was "in itself something of value in

the real world." Id. So too here. By obtaining the right to

notice and comment on the IC engine "control level" issue,

INGAA has achieved a sufficient degree of success on the

merits to entitle it to an award of attorneys' fees.

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 4 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

We further note that this Court has previously determined

that a party is not entitled to attorneys' fees under Section

307(f) for time spent on an issue on which it was wholly

unsuccessful. See, e.g., Sierra Club, 769 F.2d at 802. INGAA is therefore not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees

on the IC engine "cut-off" issue. INGAA does not dispute

this and calls our attention to the deduction it has already

made of 23% of the time spent on its merits and reply briefs

($6,199.42), which it argues constitutes the amount of time

spent on the briefs on the "cut-off" issue. We find this

amount to be a reasonable deduction and will make no further

deductions concerning this issue.

Fees for administrative proceedings. The government

claims that many of the attorneys' fees sought by INGAA

were incurred in connection with its administrative petition

filed with the EPA, and therefore fall outside the award

parameters of Section 307(f). We agree. In Ruckelshaus v.

Sierra Club, which also concerned a request for attorneys'

fees filed pursuant to Section 307(f), the Court reminded us

that "[e]xcept to the extent it has waived its immunity, the

Government is immune from claims for attorney's fees.

Waivers of immunity must be construed strictly in favor of

the sovereign ... and not enlarge[d] ... beyond what the

language requires." 463 U.S. at 685 (internal quotations and

citations omitted). As the language of Section 307(f) requires

awards only for "costs of litigation," then fees incurred in the

preparation of an administrative petition are excluded. See

Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 33, 42 (D.C. Cir. 1982), rev'd

on other grounds, Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, supra (petitioners seeking fees under Section 307(f) "not entitled to an

award of attorneys' fees for their participation in the administrative proceedings preceding their appeal"). We will therefore make deductions for those entries referencing "petition."

As many of these entries are grouped with other entries for

the same date, for purposes of making the deductions we will

assume that each entry for that date took up an equal amount

of time. We will thus divide the number of entries for each

date into the amount billed, and deduct that amount from the

total amount petitioned. See In re Pierce (Abrams Fee

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 5 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Application), 190 F.3d 586, 594 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div., 1999).

The specific deductions are listed below.

Number of Entries Amount Billed Amount

Date Entry re "Petition" for Date for Date Deducted

1/21/99 "work on petition

for reconsideration" 2 $ 609.50 $ 304.75

1/22/99 "finalize draft petition for reconsideration; telephone conference

with INGAA regarding format

and petition issues" 4 $ 627.00 $ 313.50

1/26/99 "telephone conferences with S.

Schnee regarding

petition issues, L.

Beal regarding

petition and format issues" 4 $1,006.50 $ 

503.25

2/11/99 "Write petition for

Reconsideration" 1 $1,404.50 $ 

1,404.50

2/11/99 "Research and

draft revised petition" 2 $1,287.00 $ 643.50

2/12/99 "Write Petition for

Reconsideration" 2 $1,643.00 $ 

812.50

2/15/99 "Draft petition" 3 $1,138.50 $ 379.50

2/16/99 "Draft petition

... ; research

same" 4 $ 610.50 $ 305.25

2/17/99 "Edit petition" 2 $ 330.00 $ 165.00

2/18/99 "Draft petition" 2 $ 742.00 $ 371.00

2/18/99 "Draft ... petition ... ; research regarding

same" 4 $1,468.50 $ 734.25

2/19/99 "Edit and send out

... petition" 3 $1,457.50 $ 

485.83

2/19/99 "Edit and revise

... petition" 2 $1,006.50 $ 

503.25

2/24/99 "Work on ... petition" 2 $1,563.50 $ 781.75

2/25/99 "Finish brief petition; review and

edit" 3 $1,643.00 $ 1,095.33

2/25/99 "Revise petition" 4 $1,122.00 $ 280.50

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 6 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2/26/99 "Revise petition" 3 $ 990.00 $ 330.00

2/28/99 "Revise petition" 5 $1,683.00 $ 336.60

3/1/99 "Review comments

on petition" 2 $ 148.50 $ 

74.25

3/2/99 "Revise ... petition" 3 $ 841.50 $ 280.50

3/3/99 "Final revised ...

petition" 3 $ 214.50 $ 

71.50

3/5/99 "revise petition" 3 $1,192.50 $ 397.50

3/5/99 "Research APA petitions" 1 $ 49.50 $ 

49.50

3/6/99 "Research APA petitions" 1 $ 396.00 $ 

396.00

3/8/99 "Revise petition for

reconsideration

to comply with

APA" 2 $ 412.50 $ 206.25

3/15/99 "Finalize petition

for reconsideration; review edits from INGAA

members" 2 $ 462.00 $ 462.00

3/16/99 "Handle petition

for generation

and filing" 1 $ 462.00 $ 

462.00

Total Deduction: 

$12,149.76

Fees for client service matters. The EPA objects to approximately 20 hours of attorney time for certain entries that

do not directly relate to litigation, i.e., entries having to do

with retainer agreements, conflicts checks, strategy memos,

and client updates. INGAA replies that time spent on litigation strategy is indistinguishable from litigation itself and that

time spent on keeping a client informed of the status of a

matter, and similar tasks, are necessary and directly related

to the litigation. We find INGAA's argument to be reasonable and will make no deductions for these entries.

Fees for briefs. The government challenges approximately

110 hours that INGAA spent on researching and writing its

briefs. These hours are excessive, argues the government,

particularly considering the approximately 125 hours spent on

the preparation of INGAA's administrative petition which

presented essentially identical arguments. We agree that

over two and one-half weeks of attorney time spent on briefs

in this matter appears to be unduly high, and we will thereUSCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 7 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fore make a downward adjustment for these fees.

According to the government, no more than 40 hours for

the opening brief and 20 hours for the reply brief should be

allowed. As we have already stated, many if not most of the

billing descriptions submitted in this matter are scanty, and

therefore it is difficult for us to make precise estimates of

time spent on individual tasks. It would appear, however,

that of the approximately 110 hours spent on the briefs, 90

were spent on the opening brief and 20 on the reply brief.

As 20 hours of reply brief time appears to be reasonable, we

will make no adjustment to it. We will, however, reduce by

one-half the 90 hours spent on the opening brief. See American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 72 F.3d 907, 917 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(excessive time spent on brief reduced by one-half). In

calculating the amount to be deducted, we will take the

average of the billing rates of the two attorneys who worked

on this matter and multiply this number by 45, producing a

total deduction of $9,675.00.

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 8 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Inadequate documentation. The government argues that

we should disallow much of INGAA's fee claim because the

work descriptions in its billing entries are vague and contain

no useful breakdown of professional time by task. A review

of the billings finds that there are indeed numerous deficient

entries, such as those listed only as "conference calls" with no

indication of who these calls were with or what they concerned. We have stated previously that "[s]uch description

fails to provide the court with any basis to determine with a

high degree of certainty that the hours billed were reasonable," and thus cannot be charged to the taxpayers. In re

Donovan, 877 F.2d 982, 995 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quotation marks

omitted); see also American Petroleum Institute, 72 F.3d at

915. Additionally, there are several entries for conference

calls with individuals referenced as "L. Beal," "P. Torangeau,"

"D. Malzahn," or "Perciasepe," who are not further identified

in the petition. As such, the reasonableness of these calls

also cannot be determined. In re Donovan, 877 F.2d at 995.

We therefore must deduct the full amount of all these entries

from the fee request. We will make specific deductions using

the process utilized for making deductions for "petition"

references, supra.

Wholly Deficient Number of Entries Amount Billed Amount

Date Entry for Date for Date Deducted

1/20/99 "Conference call" 4 $1,616.50 $ 404.12

1/21/99 "Telephone conferences" 2 $ 609.50 $ 304.75

1/25/99 "Prepare for and

take part in conference call" 1 $ 450.50 $ 450.50

2/4/99 "Prepare for and

take part in conference call" 1 $ 371.00 $ 

371.00

2/5/99 "Prepare for and

take part in conference call" 1 $ 344.50 $ 

344.50

2/26/99 "review emails" 2 $ 79.50 $ 39.75

3/2/99 "write emails" 2 $ 265.00 $ 132.50

3/5/99 "Two conference

calls" 3 $1,192.50 $ 397.50

3/8/99 "review and comment on fax;

send email" 3 $ 238.50 $ 

159.00

3/16/99 "Conference call" 4 $ 927.50 $ 231.87

3/23/99 "conference call" 3 $1,484.00 $ 494.66

4/13/99 "Telephone conferUSCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 9 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ence with L.

Beal" 1 $ 79.50 $ 79.50

4/15/99 "Finish and send

out draft letter to

Perciasepe" 1 $ 291.50 $ 

291.50

4/16/99 "email L. Beal" 3 $ 185.50 $ 61.83

4/20/99 "conference call;

review Perciasepe letter" 4 $ 556.50 $ 

278.25

4/21/99 "Telephone conference with P. Torangeau" 3 $ 556.50 $ 185.50

4/22/99 "telephone conference with P.

Torangeau" 2 $ 556.50 $ 

278.25

7/15/99 "Telephone conference with L.

Beal" 1 $ 79.50 $ 79.50

10/22/99 "Prepare for, take

part in conference call" 1 $ 185.50 $ 

185.50

10/28/99 "write email" 3 $1,139.50 $ 379.83

11/8/99 "prepare for and

take part in conference call" 2 $1,192.50 $ 

596.25

11/10/99 "Telephone conference with ... D.

Malzahn" 2 $ 132.50 $ 66.25

11/14/99 "Prepare for conference call" 1 $ 79.50 $ 

79.50

11/15/99 "Conference call" 2 $ 265.00 $ 132.50

2/7/00 "Review and respond to emails" 1 $ 110.00 $ 

110.00

2/15/00 "Prepare for and

take part in conference call" 2 $ 907.50 $ 

453.75

2/28/00 "telephone conference with L.

Beal" 3 $ 330.00 $ 110.00

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 10 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2/29/00 "Take part in 2

conference calls" 1 $ 495.00 $ 

495.00

3/17/99 "Conference call" 4 $1,696.00 $ 424.00

3/19/99 "two conference

calls with C. L.

Beal" 2 $ 901.00 $ 450.50

Total Deduction: $8,067.56

Notwithstanding the deduction of these wholly deficient

entries, the billing documents are replete with instances of

inadequately detailed descriptions.1 There are, in particular,

__________

1 See, for example, time entries for 1/13/99 ("Telephone conference with client; conference with J. Knight"); 1/14/99 ("conference

with J. Knight; review record"); 1/15/99 ("Review materials; conference with J. Knight; telephone conference with A. Field");

1/17/99 ("Review record; meet with J. Knight"); 1/18/99 ("Review

of record documents; meet with W. Pedersen"); 1/19/99 ("fax to J.

Dreskin"); 2/8/99 ("telephone conference with J. Dreskin"); 2/9/99

("telephone conference with P. Lacey and J. Dreskin"); 2/12/99

("confer with J. Knight"); 2/18/99 ("confer with J. Knight"); 2/23/99

("Review record"); 2/23/99 ("Record review"); 2/25/99 ("confer with

J. Knight"); 2/26/99 ("Confer with J. Knight"); 2/28/99 ("Confer

with J. Knight"); 3/4/99 ("telephone conference with A. Field of

Hunton & Williams"); 3/3/99 ("conference with J. Knight");

11/17/99 ("Email to J. Knight regarding conference call"); 11/18/99

numerous entries concerning meetings and conferences that,

although they include information concerning the identities of

the individuals involved, are nevertheless devoid of any descriptive rationale for their occurrence. Therefore, as we

have done in similar circumstances in the past, after all other

deductions have been taken we will make a further deduction

of 10% of the remaining billings. See Abrams Fee Application, 190 F.3d at 594; In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.C.

Cir., Spec. Div., 1990) (per curiam).

Fees for clerical tasks. The EPA claims that certain of

INGAA's billing entries are for purely clerical tasks such as

copying and pick up or delivery of documents, and are

therefore not reimbursable because they ought to be considered part of normal administrative overhead. We agree that

four of INGAA's entries fall into this category. On January

28, 1999, Legal Assistant Lisa Edouard billed one and onehalf hours to "[f]ile documents at US Court of Appeals for J.

Knight." This is a task routinely performed by other less

expensive personnel, such as messengers, and cannot be

charged to the public fisc. On March 24, 1999, Edouard

billed one-half hour to "[r]eproduce and fed ex documents to

EPA personnel for J. Knight." She billed two hours on

October 28, 1999, to "[o]btain" documents from the EPA.

Likewise, on November 4, 1999, she entered a half-hour to

"obtain" a Federal Register notice. Again, such tasks could

be undertaken by clerical, not legal, personnel, and we will

deduct the full amount ($427.50) of these entries. See American Petroleum Inst., 72 F.3d at 913; In re Meese, 907 F.2d at

1202-03.

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 11 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Fees for staff overtime. The government objects that fees in

the amount of $679.20 for "staff overtime" should be disallowed because such fees should more properly be considered

as part of normal overhead. We agree, and will deduct this

amount from the fee request. See In re North (Bush Fee

__________

("Conference with J. Knight"); 4/2/01 ("Conference with J.

Knight"); 4/8/01 ("conference with J. Knight").

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 12 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Application), 59 F.3d 184, 195 (D.C. Cir., Spec.Div., 1995)

(per curiam).

Fees for document production. The government objects to

INGAA's claim for $4,261.75 in "document production" costs

because no further explanation for this category is given in

the billing entries. In the past we have made deductions for

comparable fees because of a lack of supporting documentation, and we will do so here, reducing the amount by $2,000.

See In re North (Gregg Fee Application), 57 F.3d 1115, 1117

(D.C. Cir., Spec. Div., 1995); In re Meese, 907 F.2d at 1204.

Likewise, INGAA claims a total of $2,114.49 for computer

research, which also lacks any supporting documentation, and

we therefore will reduce this amount by $1,000. Id.

Fees for travel and long-distance expenses. The government challenges INGAA's inclusion of $996.03 in travel and

$396.86 in long-distance expenses, arguing that it is unclear

how such fees could arise when INGAA and the EPA, as well

as their attorneys, are all located in Washington, D.C. In

reply, INGAA informs us that most of these fees were

incurred during the settlement negotiations, which included a

trip to North Carolina where the EPA's technical staff is

located. We find this explanation reasonable and will make

no deductions for these items.

Fees for local transportation. INGAA claims $278.22 for

"local transportation," with no explanation as to why this

transportation was needed. As we have stated in the past,

we cannot assess the reasonableness of this item when it is

otherwise not explained. In re North (Shultz Fee Application), 8 F.3d 847, 852-53 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div., 1993) (per

curiam). We will therefore make a reduction for the full

amount.

Fees for fees. In its fee petition, INGAA includes 43.5

hours of attorney time for work done in connection with its

fee petition, as well as 29.7 hours for time spent on its reply

brief. The government, although not disputing that "fees for

fees" are recoverable under the CAA, see, e.g., American

Petroleum Inst., 72 F.3d at 918, argues that the amount

prayed for is excessive because, of the 43.5 fee petition hours

billed, only nine were spent on preparing the petition per se

while the remaining hours were spent on preceding unsuccessful fee negotiations with the EPA which should not be

reimbursable. INGAA replies that the time spent preparing

for the fee negotiation was also necessary to prepare the

petition after the negotiations failed, and that much of the

time spent negotiating was at the request of the government.

We find INGAA's argument to be persuasive and note that

the time requested is comparable to the amount of fee

petition time we have allowed elsewhere. Id. We will therefore not make any deductions from the requested amount.

Miscellaneous fees. The EPA objects to approximately 40

total hours of attorney time spent on various items that

according to the EPA "do not appear to be associated with

INGAA's claims in this litigation." First, the EPA argues

that fees for a stay motion that was never filed should not be

awarded. INGAA counters that the motion "was an integral

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 13 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

part of INGAA's litigation settlement strategy because it

increased INGAA's leverage with the agency," and that it was

never filed because the state petitioners' stay motion was

granted beforehand. The EPA also objects to time spent on

an economic incentives memo whose relationship to the case

was not explained. INGAA retorts that the memo concerned

an analysis of market-based approaches to control of IC

engines, and that such approaches were discussed during

settlement talks. Finally, the EPA takes issue with the time

spent on research on ripeness, standing, and delegation issues, none of which were ever raised. INGAA replies that its

strategy required it to analyze not only the issues that were

eventually litigated but also issues that might be litigated,

such as a possible government claim that INGAA did not

have standing or that the case was not ripe since the SIP call

did not directly require states to regulate IC engines. For

each of these items we find the petitioner's response to be

reasonable and no deductions will be made.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is ordered that petitioner be awarded $65,947.24 in reasonable attorneys' fees it

incurred in connection with this Court's decision in Michigan

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 14 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

and this fee petition. The computation is set forth in the

appendix.

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 15 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Appendix

Total Fee Request $107,551.95

Deductions in Opinion

1. Fees for administrative proceedings 12,149.76

2. Fees for briefs 9,675.00

3. Wholly inadequate documentation 8,067.56

4. Fees for clerical tasks 427.50

5. Fees for staff overtime 679.20

6. Fees for document production 2,000.00

7. Fees for computer research 1,000.00

8. Fees for local transportation 278.22

________

Total of specific deductions $ 34,277.24

Request minus specific deductions $ 73,274.71

9. 10% deduction for insufficient descriptions $ 7327.47

TOTAL AWARD $ 65,947.24

USCA Case #98-1618 Document #607410 Filed: 07/03/2001 Page 16 of 16