To carry out its responsibilities under the nation’s environmental laws, EPA conducts an array of activities, such as promulgating regulations; issuing and denying permits; approving state programs; and issuing enforcement orders, plans, and other documents. Many of these activities may be subject to legal challenge. Generally, the federal government has immunity from lawsuits, but federal laws authorize three types of suits related to EPA’s implementation of environmental laws. First, most of the major environmental statutes include “citizen suit” provisions authorizing citizens—including individuals, associations, businesses, and state and local governments—to sue EPA when the agency fails to perform an action mandated by law. These suits are often referred to as “agency-forcing” or “deadline” suits. Second, the major environmental statutes typically include judicial review provisions authorizing citizens to challenge certain EPA actions, such as promulgating regulations or issuing permits. Third, the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes challenges to certain agency actions that are considered final actions, such as rulemakings and decisions on permit applications. As a result, even if a particular environmental statute does not authorize a challenge against EPA for a final decision or regulation, the Administrative Procedure Act may do so. Table 1 lists key environmental laws under which EPA takes actions—or that govern EPA actions—that may be subject to challenge in court. Supporters of provisions allowing legal challenges to actions of the federal government assert that they provide a check on the authority of federal agencies as they carry out—or fail to carry out—their duties. For example, in passing the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments, a key sponsor indicated that authorizing citizens to sue agencies to compel them to carry out their duties is integral to a democratic society. According to others, citizen suits against government agencies have achieved benefits, such as ensuring the implementation of congressional directives or accelerating regulatory programs. Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Act arose out of the expansion of the federal government in the New Deal, with concerns about agencies’ adjudicative powers, their exercise of delegated legislative power by rulemakings, and the scope of review of agency administrative action by courts. A lawsuit challenging EPA’s failure to act may begin when the aggrieved party sends EPA a notice of intent to sue, if required, while a lawsuit challenging a final EPA action begins when a complaint is filed in court. Before EPA takes final action, the public or affected parties generally have opportunities to provide comments and information to the agency. In addition, administrative appeals procedures are available—and in many cases required—to challenge EPA’s final action without filing a lawsuit in a court. For example, citizens can appeal an EPA air emission permit to the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board. These administrative processes provide aggrieved parties with a forum that may be faster and less costly than a court. If a party decides to pursue a case, the litigation process generally involves filing of a complaint, formal initiation of the litigation; motions to the court before trial, such as asking for dismissal of the case; and hearings and court decisions. Throughout this process, the parties to the litigation can decide to reach a settlement. Negotiations between the aggrieved party and EPA may occur anytime after the agency action, at any point during active litigation, and even after judgment. A common remedy sought in litigation against EPA under the statutes listed in table 1 is for the court to set aside an EPA regulation or permit decision and to require EPA to reconsider that regulation or permit decision. In the United States, parties involved in litigation generally pay their own attorney fees and costs, except in instances in which Congress has provided exceptions for policy reasons, such as to encourage citizens to bring suits to enforce the law. In these instances, as well as some common-law exceptions, a prevailing plaintiff may seek award of its attorney fees and court costs from the losing party. Many of the environmental statutes in table 1 contain such exceptions authorizing courts to award fees, which, according to Justice, include awards against the federal government. In 1980, Congress enacted the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizing the award of attorney fees and costs to parties that prevail in certain lawsuits against the federal government; the payments are made from Treasury’s Judgment Fund and agency appropriations. While the federal government was already subject to some of these exceptions in environmental statutes, before EAJA was enacted, the federal government in many other cases was not subject to these exceptions and therefore was not authorized to make payments to prevailing parties. As the 1980 conference committee report for EAJA explains, the act’s premise is that individuals, corporations, partnerships, and labor and other organizations do not seek review of or defend against unreasonable government actions because of the expense involved, as well as a disparity in expertise and resources between the government and the individual or organization involved. For those cases brought under statutes that do not make the federal government subject to pay fees and costs, EAJA thus allows payment of the attorney fees and other costs if the organizations sought review of a government action and prevailed. (See app. II for a detailed description of the act.) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, EAJA authorizes the award of the following costs to be paid from Treasury’s Judgment Fund or an agency’s appropriations, as indicated:  Court costs of prevailing parties against the United States in any civil action. These costs may include fees for the clerk and marshal, reporter, printing, witnesses, copies, docket fees, and interpreters and court-appointed experts and may include an amount equal to the filing fees. Payment of costs made under this section generally are paid by Treasury’s Judgment Fund.  Reasonable attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party to the same extent as any other party where a statutory or common-law exception provides for award of fees to a prevailing party. Regarding the environmental statutes in table 1, according to Justice, many of the relevant provisions under which EPA may be sued provide for award of such fees against EPA, independent of EAJA. Nevertheless, EAJA makes EPA subject to fee awards under all the environmental statutes’ provisions authorizing courts to award attorney fees and expenses. Therefore, in many—but not all—of the environmental lawsuits against EPA, a court may award attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party against the agency, independently or as a result of EAJA section 2412(b). Payment of awards made under this section generally are paid by Treasury’s Judgment Fund.  Attorney fees and expenses of a prevailing party in most other cases—that is, when the relevant statute does not authorize courts to award attorney fees and expenses, and no common-law exception applies—unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Two laws listed in table 1—the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act—as well as some individual provisions of other statutes, do not authorize payment of fees to prevailing parties. As a result, in cases brought against EPA under these statutes and provisions, courts award payment of fees under EAJA section 2412(d). Payment of awards made under this section is generally made from agency appropriations. In addition, to settle a case, the government may agree to pay a plaintiff court costs and attorney fees and expenses. Payments made in connection with settlements are paid in the same manner as a court award for the case. Some in Congress have expressed concerns that the use of taxpayer funds to make EAJA payments depletes limited funding; these individuals have called for transparency of these expenditures. Originally, EAJA provided for governmentwide reporting on its use and cost. For judicial proceedings, EAJA required the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts to report annually to Congress on EAJA court activity, including the number, nature, and amounts of awards; claims involved; and any other relevant information deemed necessary to aid Congress in evaluating the scope and effect of awards under the act. The responsibility for this reporting was transferred to the Attorney General in 1992. In addition, EAJA required the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States to submit an EAJA report annually to Congress on administratively awarded fees and expenses. Then, in December 1995, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 repealed the Attorney General’s reporting requirement for fees and expenses awarded under EAJA and also discontinued reporting of governmentwide administrative awards of fees and costs under EAJA after fiscal year 1994. We have previously reported certain governmentwide EAJA data, as well as data focused on selected agencies. In 1995, we reported data on the number of cases and amounts of awarded plaintiff attorney fees exceeding $10,000 against nine federal agencies for cases closed during fiscal years 1993 and 1994. In 1998, we provided information on the history of EAJA, the extent to which one provision of the act was used governmentwide from 1982 to 1994, and the provision’s use by the Department of Labor and other agencies. The governmentwide data for fiscal year 1994 showed, among other things, that the Departments of Health and Human Services and of Veterans Affairs accounted for most EAJA payments in court proceedings, under the provision that applies when the substantive law does not authorize award of attorney fees and costs. The number of environmental litigation cases brought against EPA each year from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010 varied but showed no discernible trend. According to the stakeholders we interviewed, a number of factors—particularly presidential administration, the passage of new regulations or amendments to laws, or EPA’s failure to meet statutory deadlines—affect the number of environmental litigation cases each year and the type of plaintiffs who bring them. The number of environmental litigation cases brought against EPA each year from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010 varied but did not change systematically over time. The average number of new cases filed each year was 155, ranging from a low of 102 new cases filed in fiscal year 2008 to a high of 216 cases filed in fiscal year 1997 (see fig. 1).