Opinion ID: 487461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Phase III: Substantially Justified

Text: 47 The district court held that the appellants were prevailing parties in Phase III because the worst case analysis in Appendix F did not satisfy the readability requirement. It denied attorneys' fees, however, on the ground that the government's position was substantially justified. The district court must consider the totality of the circumstances present prior to and during litigation. Hill, 775 F.2d at 1042. That the government lost does not raise a presumption that its position was not substantially justified. Id. The government bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified in law and in fact. See id. 48 This court has long applied a test of reasonableness in determining whether the government's position was substantially justified. League of Women Voters v. FCC, 798 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir.1986); Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F.2d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Appellants ask us to determine the precise level of reasonableness required in light of a House of Representatives committee report accompanying the 1985 EAJA amendments: 49 Several courts have held correctly that substantial justification means more than merely reasonable. Because in 1980 Congress rejected a standard of reasonably justified in favor of substantially justified, the test must be more than mere reasonableness. 50 H.R.Rep. No. 120, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 9, reprinted in 1985 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 132, 138 (footnote omitted); see also Spencer v. NLRB, 712 F.2d 539, 558 (D.C.Cir.1983) (stating that this rejection suggests a slightly more stringent standard than one of reasonableness), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 936, 104 S.Ct. 1908, 80 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984). The Secretary counters that the legislative history of the 1985 amendments is not so clear-cut. See Russell v. National Mediation Bd., 775 F.2d 1284, 1289 (5th Cir.1985) (finding the 1985 EAJA legislative history puzzling, conflicting and inconclusive, and resolving to adhere to its previous standard of reasonableness). Although this court has recently reiterated its adherence to the general test of reasonableness, it did not address the effect of the 1985 amendments. See Minor v. United States, 797 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1986) (relying on the 1980 legislative history). This case, however, does not require us to determine whether more than mere reasonableness is required, because the government clearly meets a higher standard. 51 The district court stated that the defendant's position on the adequacy of the worst case analysis was substantially justified because no court had previously invalidated an EIS on the[ ] grounds that it did not satisfy Sec. 1502.8. We do not affirm on this broad ground. Although the absence of adverse precedent on an issue is relevant to the determination of the substantially justified question, it is not dispositive. Hill, 775 F.2d at 1042 (stating that the government may sustain its burden by showing its position is 'a novel but credible extension or interpretation of the law' ) (quoting Hoang Ha v. Schweiker, 707 F.2d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir.1983)); see also League of Women Voters, 798 F.2d at 1260 (involving an issue on which reasonable minds could differ); Minor, 797 F.2d at 739 (involving an important and doubtful question of tax law). The CEQ regulations unambiguously require an EIS to be written in plain language readily understand[able] to decisionmakers and the public. 40 C.F.R. 1502.8 (1986). The EIS must also be concise, clear, and to the point. Id. Secs. 1500.2(b), 1502.1. Several cases in other jurisdictions have demonstrated adherence to the understandability requirement. See supra Part IV.B. The position that an EIS need not comply with a clear CEQ regulation would be novel, but it is not a credible extension or interpretation of the law. See Hill, 775 F.2d at 1042. 52 We find merit in a narrower position. We do not decide whether the Secretary's position that Sec. 1502.8 did not apply to a worst case analysis was substantially justified. Cf. SOCATS, 720 F.2d at 1481 (holding that the worst case requirement of Sec. 1500.22 is straightforward and means what it says but affirming the denial of fees when there was no precedent holding that the regulation was applicable to an EA). We have no hesitation in holding that, in view of the previous uncertainty in the level of readability that Sec. 1502.8 requires and some expert testimony that the document was understandable, the Secretary's position that the worst case analysis satisfied Sec. 1502.8 was substantially justified as a matter of law and fact. The Secretary's position in Phase III was well argued and justified, though erroneous. See Trustees for Alaska, 806 F.2d at 1384. We therefore affirm the denial of attorneys' fees for Phase III.