Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

320 F.3d 279, 355 U.S. App. D.C. 151, 2003 WL 1089385, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4096
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency. Read the opinion of the Court — 208 F.3d 1015
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 7, 2003·No. Nos. 99-1200, 99-1205, 99-1206, 99-1246, 99-1266, 99-1285, 99-1289, 99-1291 to 99-1293, 99-1295, 99-1299 to 99-1301, 99-1303, 99-1304, 99-1306, 99-1307, 00-1013, 00-1021, 00-1022, 00-1024, 00-1038, 00-1042, 00-1050, 00-1071, 00-1074, 00-1077, 00-1083, 00-1087, 00-1088, 00-1096 to 00-1099, 00-1102, 00-1103, 00-1105 to 00-1110, 00-1113, 00-1114, 00-1119, 00-1122, 00-1123, 00-1125 and 00-1128·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 320 F.3d 279, 355 U.S. App. D.C. 151, 2003 WL 1089385, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4096 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

320 F.3d 279 (Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
254 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Circuit, 2001)