C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice DEBRA J. CARFORA Debra.Carfora@usdoj.gov Environmental Defense Section 601 D Street N.W., Suite 8000 Washington D.C. 20004 Telephone (202) 514-2640 Facsimile (202) 514-8865 Attorneys for Defendant ROBERT UKEILEY, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 255 Mountain Meadow Road Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone (303) 442-4033 Email: rukeiley@igc.org [additional attorney for Plaintiff included in signature block] Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, and NEIGHBORS FOR CLEAN AIR, Plaintiffs,

v. GINA McCARTHY, in her official capacity as the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendant. Case No. 4:15-cv-4663-SBA [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 152 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Nei ghbors for Clean Air filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Re lief in the above-captioned matter against Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (her einafter “EPA” or “Defendant”); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to undertake certain nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Ai r Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, and that such alleged failure is actionable under section 304(a)(2 ) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2); WHEREAS, pursuant to CAA section 109( a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(1), EPA promulgated a final rule revising the particul ate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (“PM 2.5 ”), National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”), Final Rule , 71 Fed. Reg. 61,144 (Oct. 16, 2006); WHEREAS, pursuant to CAA section 110(a )(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), “[e]ach State shall, . . . submit to the Administrator, within 3 years . . . after the promulgation of a [NAAQS] (or revision thereof) unde r section 7409 of this title for any air pollutant, a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary standard in each air quality control region (o r portion thereof) with each State,” a state implementation plan (“SIP”). WHEREAS, among other requirements, st ates with designated nonattainment areas must make a SIP submission to meet requirements applicable to such areas, including the requirements set forth in section 11 0(a)(2)(I), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(I); section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c), and s ections 188 - 189, 42 U.S.C. § 7513 - 7513a; WHEREAS, EPA must then determine whet her a State’s submission is complete within six months after EPA receives the submission. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(1)(B). If EPA does not determine completeness of the plan or revision embodied in the SIP Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 153 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 submission within six months, then the subm ission is deemed complete by operation of law after six months. Id.; WHEREAS, within 12 months of a de termination of completeness or a determination of completeness by operation of la w, EPA must act on the plan or revision. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2). EPA must approve , disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, the plan or revision. Id. § 7410(k)(3)-(4); WHEREAS, pursuant to CAA section 189(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7513a, and a subsequent rulemaking action by EPA, states with areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, were required to make a SIP su bmission to address all attainment plan requirements by no later than December 31, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 31,566 (June 2, 2014); WHEREAS, in Claim 1, Plaint iffs allege that EPA ha s failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA sections 110(k)(1), 42 U. S.C. §§ 7410(K)(1)(B), to make a finding concerning whether the State of California has made a complete SIP submission to address the nonattainment new source revi ew (NNSR) requirements related to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for El Dorado and Yolo-Solano air districts in California, see Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 18); WHEREAS, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2)-(4), EPA is required to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, each plan or revision submitted to EPA, w ithin 12 months of a determination of completeness by EPA or of a determinati on completeness by operation of law; WHEREAS, in Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges that EPA has failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), to take final action to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, certain complete SIP submissions from states intende d to address specific requirements related to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the following designated nonattainment areas, see Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 18): Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 154 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 AREA ELEMENT(S) Logan, ID Cache Valley Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan submitted to EPA by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality on December 19, 2012. Klamath Falls, OR State Implementation Plan Revision KLAMATH FALLS FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) ATTAINMENT PLAN, SECTION 4.62 OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN submitted to EPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on December 17, 2012. Oakridge, OR Oakridge Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan submitted to EPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on December 12, 2012. Nogales, and West Central Pinal, AZ 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Non-Attainment New Source Review Element of ADEQ’s 2012 New Source Review Stat e Implementation Plan Revision submitted to EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on October 29, 2012. Chico, CA Butte County Air Quality Manageme nt District Rules 400, 401, and 432, submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on February 6, 2013, as amended by the Butte County Air Quality Management District on April 24, 2014 and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board in a subsequent submission on November 6, 2014.

San Francisco Bay Area, CA Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist rict Regulation 2, Rule 1, Permits, General Requirements; Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri ct Regulation 2, Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review; Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri ct Regulation 2, Rule 4, Permits, New Source Review; Submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on April 22, 2013. Logan, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified S ources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 155 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 AREA ELEMENT(S) R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013. Provo, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified S ources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013.

Salt Lake City, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified S ources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013.

WHEREAS, if a state fails to make a requi red SIP submission or if EPA finds that plan or revision submitted by a state is incomplete or disapproves a plan or revision Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 5 of 156 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 submitted by a state, EPA must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (“FIP”) to address the deficiencies “at any time w ithin 2 years,” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1); WHEREAS, on July 30, 2013, EPA disapprove d a SIP submission from the State of Montana intended to address the requireme nts of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the conflic t of interest requirements of section 128, 42 U.S.C. § 7428, and the effective date of su ch disapproval was August, 29, 2013; WHEREAS, in Claim 3, Plaint iffs allege that EPA ha s failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA sections 110(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(c)(1), to “promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 year s after the Administrator--(A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submissi on or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the State does not satisfy the minimum criteria established under subsection (k)(1)(A) of this sect ion, or (B) disapproves a State im plementation plan submission in whole or in part,” addressing the 2006 PM2.5 SIP 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)(ii) , for Montana , see Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 18): WHEREAS, the relief request ed in the Complaint includes, among other things, an order from this Court to establish a date certain by which EPA must fulfill its obligations for each of the Claims; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EPA have agreed to a settlement of this action without admission of any issue of fact or law, except as expressly provided herein; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EPA, by ente ring into this Consent Decree, do not waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defens e, on any grounds, related to any final EPA action; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EPA consider th is Consent Decree to be an adequate and equitable resolution of all the claims in th is matter and therefore wish to effectuate a settlement; WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Healt h, and Neighbors for Clean Air, Defendant EPA, and judicial economy to resolve th is matter without protracted litigation; Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 6 of 157 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EPA agree th at this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the citizen suit provisi on in CAA section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2), and that venue is proper in the No rthern District of Ca lifornia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and N.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 3-2(c)-(d); WHEREAS, the Court, by entering this Consent Decree, finds that the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, in the public intere st, and consistent with the Clean Air Act; NOW THEREFORE, before the taki ng of testimony, without trial or determination of any issues of fact or law, and upon the consent of Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, a nd Neighbors for Clean Air and Defendant EPA, it is hereby orde red, adjudged and decreed that: 1. Claims 1, 2 and 3. a. Claim 1. The a ppropriate EPA official shall sign a notice to make a determination under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(1)(B) concerning whether the State of California has made a complete SIP submission to address the NNSR requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the El Dorado and Yolo-Solano air distri cts in California, no later than May 30, 2016. b. Claim 2. The appropriate EPA of ficial shall sign a notice of final rulemaking to approve, disapprove, or condi tionally approve, in whole or in part, pursuant to sections 110(k)(2)-(4) of the C AA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), certain SIP submissions from states intended to addr ess specific requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, no later than the date indicated below for the fo llowing nonattainment areas and requirements:

AREA ELEMENT(S) DEADLINE Logan, ID Cache Valley Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan, December 2012, submitted to EPA by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality on December 19, 2012. 12/8/2016

Klamath Falls, OR State Implementation Plan Revision KLAMATH FALLS FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) ATTAINMENT PLAN, SECTION 4.62 OF THE STATE 9/2/2016 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 7 of 158 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 AREA ELEMENT(S) DEADLINE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN submitted to EPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on December 12, 2012. Oakridge, OR Oakridge Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan submitted to EPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on December 12, 2012. 10/21/2016

Nogales, and West Central Pinal, AZ 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Non-Attainment New Source Review Element of ADEQ ’s 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Revision submitted to EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on October 29, 2012. 6/30/16

Chico, CA Butte County Air Quality Mana gement District Rules 400, 401, and 432, submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on February 6, 2013, as amended by the Butte County Air Quality Mana gement District on April 24, 2014 and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board in a subsequent submission on November 6, 2014. 11/1/2016

San Francisco Bay Area, CA Bay Area Air Quality Manageme nt District Regulation 2, Rule 1, Permits, General Requirements; Bay Area Air Quality Manageme nt District Regulation 2, Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review; Submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on April 22, 2013. 11/1/2016

San Francisco Bay Area, CA Bay Area Air Quality Manageme nt District Regulation 2, Rule 4, Permits, New Source Review; 5/1/2017

Logan, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” 12/8/2016 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 8 of 159 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 AREA ELEMENT(S) DEADLINE

R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013. Provo, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013. 12/8/2016

Salt Lake City, UT R307-401 “Permit: New and Modified Sources” R307-401-19 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-401-20 “Relaxation of Limitations”

R307-403 “Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas”; R307-403-1 “Purpose and Definitions” R307-403-2 “Applicability” R307-403-10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307-403-11 “Actuals PALS” R307-420 “Permits: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties” Submitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 20, 2013. 12/8/2016

c. Claim 3. The appropriate EPA of ficial shall sign a notice of final rulemaking to promulgate a Federal implementation plan pursuant to section Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 9 of 1510 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 28 110(c)(1)(A)-(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410( c)(1)(A)-(B), or to approve in full, a SIP submission pursuant to section 110(k)(2)-(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(2)- (4), or to promulgate a FI P in part and approve a stat e SIP submission in part, as necessary, in order to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)(ii) , for Montana , no later than September 30, 2016. 2. If any state withdraws a submittal liste d above in Paragraph 1(b), then EPA’s obligation to take the action required by Paragr aph 1(b) with respect to that submittal is automatically terminated. 3. EPA shall, within 15 days of signa ture, deliver notice of each action taken pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Consent Decree to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication. 4. After EPA has completed all of the act ions set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Consent Decree and after noti ce of each final action required by Paragraph 1 has been published in the Federal Register and the issu e of costs of litigati on, including attorneys fees, has been resolved, EPA may move to have this Decree terminated and the action dismissed. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (1 4) days in which to respond to such a motion, unless the parties stipul ate to a longer time for Plaintiffs to respond. 5. The deadlines established by this Consent Decree may be extended (a) by written stipulation of Plaintiffs and EPA with notice to the Court, or (b) by the Court upon motion of EPA for good cause shown pursu ant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon consideration of any respons e by Plaintiffs and any reply by EPA. 6. If a lapse in appropriations for EPA occurs within one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to any deadlin e in Paragraph 1 in this Decree, that deadline shall be extended automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude EPA from s eeking an additional ex tension pursuant to Paragraph 5. 7. Plaintiffs and EPA agree that this Consent Decree shall constitute a complete and final settlement of all claims that Plaint iffs have asserted against the United States, Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 10 of 1511 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 including EPA, under any provision of law in connection with Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. McCarthy , Case No. 4:15-cv-4663-SBA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs therefore discharge and covenant not to su e the United States, including EPA, for any such claims. 8. In the event of a dispute between Plaintiffs and EPA concerning the interpretation or implementation of any aspect of this Consent Decr ee, the disputing party shall provide the other party with a written notice, via electronic mail or other means, outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting informal negotiations. These parties shall meet and confer in order to attempt to resolve the dispute. If these parties are unable to resolve the dispute within ten (10) business days after re ceipt of the notice, either party may petition the C ourt to resolve the dispute. 9. No motion seeking to enforce this C onsent Decree or for contempt of Court shall be properly filed unless the procedure set forth in Paragraph 8 has been followed, and the non-moving party has been provided with written notice at l east ten (10) business days before the filing of such motion. 10. The deadline for filing a motion for co sts of litigation (including attorney fees) for activities performed prior to entr y of the Consent Decree is hereby extended until ninety (90) days after this Consent D ecree is entered by the Court. During this period, the Parties shall seek to resolve informally any cl aim for costs of litigation (including attorney fees), and if they cannot, the Plaintiffs will file a motion for costs of litigation (including attorney fees) or a stipul ation or motion to extend the deadline to file such a motion. EPA reserves the ri ght to oppose any su ch request. 11. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matte r to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree and to consider any requests for co sts of litigation, including attorney fees. 12. Nothing in the terms of this Consent D ecree shall be construed (a) to confer upon this Court jurisdiction to re view any issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Courts of A ppeals under CAA section 307(b)(1), Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 11 of 1512 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), including final action taken pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k), appr oving, disapproving, or condi tionally approving in whole or in part a SIP submission or final action promulgating a FIP pursuant to section 110(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c), or (b) to wa ive any claims, remedies, or defenses that the parties may have under CAA sec tion 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). 13. Nothing in this Consent Decree sha ll 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 s ubject of this Consen t Decree, including the discretion to alter, amend, or revise any final actions pr omulgated pursuant to this Consent Decree. EPA’s obligation to perfor m each action specified in this Consent Decree does not constitute a limitation or m odification of EPA’s discretion within the meaning of this paragraph. 14. Except as expressly provided herein, not hing in this Consent Decree shall be construed as an admission of any issue of f act or law nor to waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final action EPA takes with respect to the actions addressed in this Consent Decree. 15. Plaintiffs reserve the right to se ek additional costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred subsequent to entry of this Consent Decree. EPA reserves the right to oppose any such request for additi onal costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees. 16. It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that this Consent Decree was jointly drafted by Plaintiffs and EPA. Acco rdingly, the parties hereby agree that any and all rules of construction to the effect that ambiguity is cons trued against the drafting party shall be inapplicable in any dispute concerning the terms, meaning, or interpretation of this Consent Decree. 17. The parties agree and acknowledge that before this Consent Decree can be finalized and entered by the Court, EPA must provide notice of this Consent Decree in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to CAA Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 12 of 1513 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g). After th is Consent Decree ha s undergone notice and comment, the Administrator and/or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall promptly consider any written comments in determin ing whether to withdr aw or withhold their consent to the Consent D ecree, in accordance with CAA section 113(g). If the Administrator and/or the Attorney General do not elect to withdraw or withhold consent, EPA shall promptly file a motion that request s that the Court enter this Consent Decree. 18. Any notices required or provided fo r by this Consent Decree shall be in writing, via electronic mail or other means, and sent to the following (or to any new address of counsel as filed and listed in the docket of the above-captioned matter, at a future date): For Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air: Robert Ukeiley Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 255 Mountain Meadow Road Boulder, CO 80302 Tel. (303) 442-4033 Email: rukeiley@igc.org Jonathan Evans (Cal. Bar #247376) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-844-7100 x318 Fax: 510-844-7150 email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org

For Defendant EPA: Debra J. Carfora U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section 601 D Street N.W., Suite 8000 Washington D.C. 20004 Tel. (202) 514-2640 Email: Debra.Carfora@usdoj.gov

19. EPA and Plaintiffs r ecognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed upon EPA under this Consent Decree can onl y be undertaken using appropriated funds Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 13 of 1514 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 legally available for such purpose. No pr ovision of this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as or constitute a commitment or requirement that the United States obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-De ficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable provision of law. 20. If for any reason the Court should dec line to approve this Consent Decree in the form presented, this agreement is voidable at the sole discretion of either party and the terms of the proposed Consent Decree may not be used as evidence in any litigation between the parties. 21. The undersigned representatives of Plai ntiffs and Defendant certify that they are fully authorized by the party they repres ent to consent to the Court’s entry of the terms and conditions of this Decree. SO ORDERED on this _____ day of _______, 2016.

________________________________ SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

Robert Ukeiley, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 255 Mountain Meadows Road Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone (303) 442-4033 Email: rukeiley@igc.org Jonathan Evans (Cal. Bar #247376) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-844-7100 x318 Fax: 510-844-7150 email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for En vironmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 14 of 1515 C ASE N O

. 4:15- CV -4663-SBA [Proposed] Consent Decree 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 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division

Debra J. Carfora Environmental Defense Section 601 D Street N.W., Suite 8000 Washington D.C. 20004 Tel. (202) 514-2640 Email: Debra.Carfora@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant EPA Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 24-1 Filed 03/23/16 Page 15 of 15