JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SIERRA CLUB AND WILDEARTH 

GUARDIANS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GINA McCARTHY, in her official capacity 

as Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Defendant. 

JUDGMENT 

Case No. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR and Case 

No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR (consolidated) 

SIERRA CLUB, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GINA McCARTHY, in her official capacity 

as the Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Defendant. 

This Court having Granted In Part and Denied In Part Motions for Summary 

Judgment by Plaintiffs1 and Defendants (4:14-cv-05091-YGR, Dkt. No. 39): 

Judgment on Claim 1 in Case No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR and all claims in 4:14-cv05091-YGR is entered in part for Plaintiffs and in part for Defendant Gina McCarthy, in 

her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

 1

 Sierra Club is a plaintiff in both Case No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR and 4:14-cv05091-YGR. Wildearth Guardians is a plaintiff in only 4:14-cv-5091-YGR. 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page1 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Agency (hereinafter “EPA”) as set forth in the Court’s May 7, 2015 Order. Further, the 

terms of the proposed Partial Consent Decree between Sierra Club and EPA as to Claim 2 

in Case No. 4:14-cv-3198-YGR are incorporated into this Order (4:14-cv-3198-YGR, 

Dkt. No. 49-1). 

 It is ORDERED that by June 30, 2015, the appropriate EPA official shall sign a 

notice issuing its failure to submit findings for Alabama, Arkansas, California, 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

Washington, and West Virginia that have failed to include a Good Neighbor provision for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in their SIP submittals.

If any of the above States make a complete SIP submittal addressing Good 

Neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS before that deadline, then EPA’s 

obligation to take the action required above as to that State is automatically terminated.

 It is further ORDERED that the appropriate EPA official shall sign a notice of 

final rulemaking to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and 

conditionally approve or disapprove in part, certain plans pursuant to sections 110(k)(2)-

(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), no later than the date indicated below for 

the following states and elements of section 110(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS: 

STATE SIP ELEMENT(S) DATE 

a. Alabama 110(a)(2)(J) (visibility portion) October 31, 2015 

b. Alabama 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) May 31, 2016 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page2 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATE SIP ELEMENT(S) DATE 

c. Arizona 110(a)(C), (D)(i)(II) (prong 3 

only), (J)-(K) except for 

elements 110(a)(2)(C), (J), and 

(D)(i)(II) to the extent these 

elements refer to the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) requirements in 

Maricopa County, Pima 

County, and Pinal County, 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) to the extent it 

refers to notification to other 

states for sources in these three 

counties, and element 

110(a)(2)(K) for these three 

counties 

June 30, 2015 

d. Arizona 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) and (II) (prong 4) 

June 7, 2016 

e. Colorado 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) October 31, 2015 

f. Colorado 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) January 29, 2016 

g. Connecticut 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) 

December 31, 2015 

h. Georgia 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (E)-(H), (J)-

(M) (excluding 110(a)(2)(C) 

(PSD portion) and (J) (PSD 

portion)) 

October 31, 2015 

i. Georgia 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) May 31, 2016 

j. Idaho 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) January 29, 2016 

k. Illinois 110(a)(2)(A) May 30, 2015 

l. Illinois 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (J) 

(visibility portion) 

August 31, 2015 

m. Indiana 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) (excluding prong 4 and 

(J) (visibility portion)) 

May 31, 2015 

n. Indiana 110(a)(2)(J) (visibility portion) August 31, 2015 

o. Indiana 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) and (D)(i)(II) (prong 4) 

June 7, 2016 

p. Iowa 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) 

September 30, 2016 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page3 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATE SIP ELEMENT(S) DATE 

q. Kansas 110(a)(2)(J) (visibility portion) November 30, 2015 

r. Maryland 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) 

June 7, 2016 

s. Mississippi 110(a)(2)(J) ( visibility portion) October 31, 2015 

t. Mississippi 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) May 31, 2016 

u. Montana 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) March 31, 2016 

v. Nebraska 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) September 30, 2015 

w. Nebraska 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) January 29, 2016 

x. New Hampshire 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) 

December 31, 2015 

y. North Carolina 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(ii)-(H), 

(J)-(M) (excluding 110(a)(2)(C) 

(PSD portion), E(ii), and (J) 

(PSD portion)) 

October 31, 2015 

z. North Carolina 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD portion), 

(D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4), 

(E)(ii), and (J) (PSD portion) 

May 31, 2016 

aa. North Dakota 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) (excluding prong 4) 

December 17, 2015 

bb. North Dakota 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) and (II) (prong 4) 

January 29, 2016 

cc. Ohio 110(a)(2)(J) (visibility portion) August 31, 2015 

dd. Ohio 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 

2) and (II) (prong 4) 

June 7, 2016 

ee. Oregon 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) 

January 29, 2016 

ff. Rhode Island 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) 

December 31, 2015 

gg. South Carolina 110(a)(2)(J) (visibility portion) October 31, 2015 

hh. South Carolina 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) May 31, 2016 

ii. Texas 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) (excluding prong 4) 

August 31, 2016 

jj. Texas 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) September 4, 2015 

kk. Texas 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 

2) 

June 7, 2016 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page4 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATE SIP ELEMENT(S) DATE 

ll. Utah 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II)-(H), 

(J)-(M) (excluding prong 4) 

June 30, 2016 

mm. Utah 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 

2) and (II) (prong 4) 

June 7, 2016 

 If any State withdraws an above-listed submittal, then EPA’s obligation to take 

the action required above with respect to that submittal is automatically terminated. 

 EPA shall, within 15 days of signature, send the rulemaking package for each 

action taken pursuant to this Judgment and Order to the Office of the Federal Register for 

review and publication. 

 The deadlines established by this Judgment and Order may be extended (a) by 

written stipulation of Plaintiff and EPA with notice to the Court, or (b) by the Court upon 

motion of EPA for good cause shown pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and upon consideration of any response by Plaintiff and any reply by EPA. Any other 

provision of this Judgment may be modified by the Court following motion of a party for 

good cause shown pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon 

consideration of any response by a non-moving party and any reply. 

 If a lapse in EPA appropriations occurs within one hundred and twenty (120) days 

prior to a deadline the above table in this Judgment, that deadline shall be extended 

automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations. 

 In the event of a dispute between Plaintiffs and EPA concerning the interpretation 

or implementation of any aspect of this Judgment and Order, the disputing party shall 

provide the other party with a written notice outlining the nature of the dispute and 

requesting informal negotiations. These parties shall meet and confer in order to attempt 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page5 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to resolve the dispute. If these parties are unable to resolve the dispute within ten (10) 

business days after receipt of the notice, either party may petition the Court to resolve the 

dispute. 

 No motion or other proceeding seeking to enforce this Judgment and Order or for 

contempt of Court shall be properly filed unless the procedure set forth above has been 

followed, and the moving party has provided the other party with written notice received 

at least ten (10) business days before the filing of such motion or proceeding. 

 These consolidated cases are dismissed with prejudice. However, this Court shall 

retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of this Judgment and Order and to 

consider any requests for costs of litigation, including attorney fees. 

 Nothing in the terms of this Judgment and Order shall be construed (a) to confer 

upon this Court jurisdiction to review any issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction 

of the United States Courts of Appeals under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(b)(1), including final action take pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(k), approving, disapproving, or approving in part and disapproving in part a SIP 

submittal, or (b) to waive any claims, remedies, or defenses that the parties may have 

under CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). 

 Nothing in this Judgment and Order shall be construed to limit or modify any 

discretion accorded EPA by the Clean Air Act or by general principles of administrative 

law in taking the actions which are the subject of this Judgment, including the discretion 

to alter, amend, or revise any final actions promulgated pursuant to this Judgment. 

EPA’s obligation to perform each action specified in this Judgment does not constitute a 

limitation or modification of EPA’s discretion within the meaning of this paragraph. 

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page6 of 7
JUDGMENT 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-05091-YGR 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiffs’ time to file a motion for costs of litigation, including attorneys’ and 

expert witness fees, and taxation of costs, is extended for 90 days from the date of this 

judgment, to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve this issue without judicial 

intervention. 

 Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek additional costs of litigation, including 

reasonable attorney fees, incurred subsequent to entry of this Judgment. EPA reserves 

the right to oppose any such request for additional costs of litigation, including attorney 

fees. 

 EPA and Plaintiffs recognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed upon 

EPA under this Judgment can only be undertaken using appropriated funds legally 

available for such purpose. No provision of this Judgment and Order shall be interpreted 

as or constitute a commitment or requirement that the United States obligate or pay funds 

in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable 

provision of law. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 15th day of May, 2015. 

 ________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case4:14-cv-05091-YGR Document41 Filed05/15/15 Page7 of 7