Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01277/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01277-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Petitioner
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

–————

No. 99–1268 September Term, 2002

Filed On: March 7, 2003

APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, ET AL.,

PETITIONERS

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with

99–1270, 99–1274, 99–1276, 99–1277, 99–1279, 99–1280,

99–1281, 99–1286, 99–1287, 00–1169, 00–1187, 00–1189,

00–1190, 00–1191, 00–1192, 00–1194

On Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

–————

Before: EDWARDS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges, and

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for attorneys’ fees, the

response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be denied. A remand occasioned by an agency’s failure to respond to comments is a

USCA Case #99-1277 Document #736560 Filed: 03/07/2003 Page 1 of 2
2

purely procedural victory for the petitioner and is therefore

insufficient to support an award of attorneys’ fees under 42

U.S.C. § 7607(f). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 769 F.2d 796, 806

(D.C. Cir. 1985). In the most similar case in which this court

did award attorneys’ fees, Michigan v. EPA, 254 F.3d 1087,

1091 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (vacating EPA rule for want of notice

and comment before promulgation), the Agency had to reopen

the record or receive new comments on remand, thus creating

a greater probability that it would alter the rule.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

 BY:

 Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #99-1277 Document #736560 Filed: 03/07/2003 Page 2 of 2