United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT --------- Filed August 21, 2001 No. 94-1 In re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association (Independent Counsel's Motion for Termination Order) _______ Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels Ethics in Government Act of 1978, As Amended _______ Before: Sentelle, Presiding, Fay and Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judges. ORDER DEFINING FURTHER DUTIES OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Per Curiam: On August 3, 2001, Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray filed with this Court a "Motion for Order of Termination of Investigation of the Office of Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray"; and, Upon due consideration, it appearing to the Court that the Independent Counsel has represented to the Court that all investigations were concluded as of January 19, 2001; and, that in compliance with 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(1)(B), the Inde- pendent Counsel has filed with the Special Division the final reports in all of its investigative mandates, which set forth fully and completely the work of the office; and, for the reasons more fully set forth in the opinion filed contempora- neously herewith, it is (1) ORDERED that the Independent Counsel, effective September 30, 2001, and subject to further order of this Court, continue his office only to the extent necessary or appropriate to fulfill his duties relating to his Final Report, specifically: (a) the final submission of such Report inclusive of the statutory appendix consisting of the comments autho- rized by this Court in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(2); (b) the written evaluations of applications for attorneys' fees in accordance with 28 U.S.C. s 593(f)(2); (c) the archiving and transfer of reports pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 594(k)(1); (d) the publi- cation of final reports under 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(3), as may be ordered by the Court; and, (e) the completion of any remaining audits in 28 U.S.C. s 596(c)(1). (2) To the extent necessary or appropriate to the purposes of this order, the Independent Counsel shall perform any noninvestigative and nonprosecutorial tasks remaining of his statutory duties as required to conclude the functions of his office as set forth in the decretal paragraph (1). Per Curiam For the Court: Mark J. Langer, Clerk by Marilyn R. Sargent Chief Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _______ Filed August 21, 2001 No. 94-1 In re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association (Independent Counsel's Motion for Termination Order) _______ Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels Ethics in Government Act of 1978, As Amended _______ Before: Sentelle, Presiding, Fay and Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Special Division filed per curiam. Per curiam: As we noted in the Per Curiam order accom- panying this opinion, the Independent Counsel has come before this Court moving for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 596(b)(1) "terminating the investigation of the office of Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray" (the "Office"). Literal- ly, that section of the Ethics in Government Act empowers the Court to effect the "termination of office" rather than the termination of investigation. However, we have in the past construed the statute as granting the lesser included authori- zation to terminate the investigative functions of the office while reiterating the noninvestigative statutory duties of the office, such as those set forth in our accompanying order. See generally, In re North (Walsh Show Cause Order), 10 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div. 1993) (per curiam). In the present case, as in In re North, it appears to the Court that an order so delimiting the continuing authority of the Office is appropriate. The Independent Counsel has represented to the Court that he completed all of his investigations as of January 19, 2001. We have no reason to doubt this assertion, and it is not apparent that any other party would have standing to chal- lenge that assertion. Insofar as other parties have interests in the question, these would seem appropriately addressed in the comments to the report authorized by this Court in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s 594(h)(2). In- dependent Counsel Ray, like the Independent Counsel in In re North, does not seek to absolve himself of the duties contemplated under the statute of responding to attorney fee applications, archiving, publishing, and conducting such other supportive noninvestigative functions as may remain his duty. Neither do we contemplate absolving him of those duties. Therefore, by the order of even date, we have granted the termination of investigation sought by the Independent Coun- sel, but do not terminate his office, as he remains empowered and obligated under the statute to perform the other nonin- vestigative duties which neither the Court nor the Depart- ment of Justice is equipped to perform were we to terminate his office. SO ORDERED.