Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency
This text of 320 F.3d 279 (Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for attorneys’ fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
[152]*152ORDERED that the motion be denied. A remand occasioned by an agency’s failure to respond to comments is a 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F.3d 279, 355 U.S. App. D.C. 151, 2003 WL 1089385, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appalachian-power-co-v-environmental-protection-agency-cadc-2003.