C ASE N O

. 4:15

- CV

- 4663

- SBA 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 (20 2) 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 Tel ephone ( 303 ) 442

- 4033 Email: rukeiley@igc.org

[additional a ttorney for Plainti ff included in signature block]
Attorney s for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CE NTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, and NEIGHBORS FOR CLEAN AIR
,
Plaint i ff s ,

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

CONSENT DECREE Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 152

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 , Plaintiff s Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the above

- captioned matter against Gina McCarthy , in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States

Environm ental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA” or “ Defendant”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff s allege that EPA has failed to undertake certain non

discretionary duties under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) , 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401

- 7671q, and that such alleg ed 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 particulate 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) under 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 (or portion thereof) with each State,” a state implementation plan (“SIP”)

. WHEREAS, among other requirements, states with designated nonattainment areas must make a SIP submission to meet requirements applicable to such areas, including the requirements set forth in section 1 10(a)(2)( I )
, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)( I ) ;
section 1 72 ( c )
, 42 U.S.C. § 7 502 ( c), and sections 188

- 189, 42 U.S.C. § 7 513

- 7513 a ; WHEREAS, EPA must then determine whether a State’s submi ssion is complete

within six months after EPA receives the submission. 4 2 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 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 153

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 submi ss ion is deemed complete by operation of

law after six months. Id. ; WHEREAS, w ithin 12 months of a d etermination of completeness or a

determination of completeness by operation of law, 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. § 7 410(k)(3)

- (4) ;
WHEREAS , pursuant to CAA section 1 89 ( a )( 2 ), 42 U.S.C. § 7 513a
, 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 submission to address all attainment

p lan requirements by no later than December 31, 2014

. 7 9 Fed. Reg. 31,566 ( June 2,

2014 );

WHEREAS , in Claim 1, Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA sections 110 (k)( 1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410( K )( 1)(B), to make a finding

concerni ng whether the State of California has made a complete SIP submission to address the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements related to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS for El Dorado and Yolo

- Solano air districts in California, see Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. N o. 18); WHEREAS, pursuant to CAA section 110 (k)( 2 )

- (4) , 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)( 2 )

- (4)
, EPA i s required to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve
, in whole or in part
, each plan or revision submitted to EPA , within 12 months of a determination of compl eteness by EPA or of a determination 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 , dis approve, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, certain complete SIP submissions from states intended to address specific requirements related to

the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the following designated nonattainment areas , see Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 1 8 ): Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 154

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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) Attainmen t 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 State Implementation Plan Revi sion submitted to EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on October 29, 2012.

Chico, CA Butte County Air Quality Management 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 District Regulation 2, Rule 1, Permits, General Requirements ;
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 2, Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review ;
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 2, Rule 4, Permits, New Source Review;

S ubmitted 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 Sources in Nonattainment A reas 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 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 155

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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”

S ubmitted to EP A by the Governor of Utah on August 2 0 , 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 Ma intenance 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”

S ubmitted to EPA by the G overnor of Utah on August 2 0 , 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 Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Mai ntenance 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”

S ubmitted to EPA by the Gov ernor of Utah on August 2 0 , 2013.

WHEREAS, if a state fails to make a required 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 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 156

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 within 2 years,” 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1) ; WHEREAS, on July 30, 2013, EPA disapproved a SIP submission from the State of Montana intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E )(ii), 42 U.S.C. §
7410( a )( 2)(E)(ii), and the conflict of interest requirements of section 128, 42 U.S.C. §

74 28, and the effective date of such disapproval was August, 29, 2013;
WHEREAS, in Claim 3
, Plaintiff s allege that EPA has 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 years after the Administrator

-- (A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submission or finds that the plan or plan rev ision submitted by the State does not satisfy the minimum criteria established under subsection (k)(1)(A) of this section, or (B) disapproves a State implementation 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. 1 8 ) : WHEREAS, EPA took final action to approve elements of SIP revisions from the

State of Montana intended to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 42
U.S.C. § 7410( a )( 2)( E)(ii), Final Rule, Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010

SO2 , and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Montana , 81 Fed. Reg.

23180

- 01 (April 20, 2016), and therefore Claim 3 is moot; WHEREAS, the relief requested 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, Plaintiff s 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, Plaintiff s and EPA, by entering into this Consent Decree, do not waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any g rounds, related to any final EPA
action; Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 157

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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, Plaintiff s and EPA consider this Consent Decree to be an adequate and equitable resolution of all the claims in this matter and therefore wish to effectuate a
settlement;
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of t he public, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air, Defendant EPA, and judicial economy to resolve this matter without protracted litigation;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff s and EPA agree that this Cou rt has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the citizen suit provision in CAA section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2), and that venue is proper in the Northern District of California 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 interest, and consistent with the Clean Air Act; WHEREAS, EPA has completed the process for public participation required by

CAA s ection 113(g), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), and has determined not to withdraw or withhold
consent to this Consent Decree; NOW THEREFORE, before the taking 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, and Neighbors for Clean Air and Defendant EPA, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that:

1. Claim s 1 and 2.

a. Claim 1

. The appropriate 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 districts in California
, no later than May
30, 2016.

b

. Claim 2

. The appropriate EPA official shall sign a notice of final rulemaking to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve
, in whole or in part
,
p ursuant to sections 110(k) (2)

- (4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)( 2)

- (4), certai n SIP Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 7 of 158

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 submissions from states intended to address specific requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS
, no later than the date indicated below for the following 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 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN submitted to EPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on December 1 2 , 2012. 9/2/2016

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 submi tted to EPA by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on October 29, 2012. 6/30/16

Chico, CA Butte County Air Quality Management District Rules 400, 401, and 432, submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on February 6, 2013, as am ended 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. 11/1/2016

San Francisco Bay Area, CA Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 2, Rule 1, Permits, General Requirements;
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 2, Rule 2, Permits, New Source Review;

S ubmitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on April 22, 2013. 11/1/2016

San Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 2, Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 8 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 8 of 159

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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

Francis co Bay Area, CA 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”

R3 07

- 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 Re quirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties”

S ubmitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 2 0
, 2013. 12/8 /2016

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 Off set Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties”

S ubmitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 2 0
, 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” 12/8 /2016 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 9 of 1510

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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

- 403

- 2 “Applicability” R307

- 403

- 10 “Analysis of Alternatives” R307

- 403

- 11 “Actuals PALS”

R307

- 420 “Perm its: Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties”

S ubmitted to EPA by the Governor of Utah on August 2 0
, 2013.

2

. If any state withdraws a submittal listed above in Paragraph 1(b), then EPA’s obligation to take the action requir ed by Paragraph 1(b) with respect to that submittal is automatically terminated.

3. EPA shall, within 15 days of signature , deliver notice of each action taken
pursuant to P aragraph 1 of this Consent Decree to the Office of the Federal Register for

revie w and publication.

4

. After EPA has completed all of the action s set forth in Paragraph 1 of this

Consent Decree and after notice of each final action required by P aragraph 1 has been published in the Federal Register and the issue of costs of litigation, including attorneys

fees
, has been resolved , EPA may move to have this Decree terminated and the action

dismissed

. Plaintiff s shall have fourteen (14) days in which to respond to such a motion
, unless the parties stipulate to a longer time for Plaintiff s to respond

. 5

. The deadline s established by this Consent Decree may be extended (a) by written stipulation of Plaintiff s 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 s and any reply by EPA

. 6 . If a lapse in appropriations for EPA occurs within one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to any deadline in Paragraph 1 in this Decree, th at deadline shall be

exte nded automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations

. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude EPA from seeking an additional extension pursuant to Paragraph 5

. Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 10 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 10 of 1511

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 7

. Plaintiff s and EPA agree that this Consent Decree shall constitute a complete

and final settlement of all claims that Plaintiff s have asserted against the United States, including EPA, under any provision of law in connection with C enter f or Biological Diversity, et al. v. McCarthy , Case No. 4:15

- cv

- 4663

- SBA (N.D. Cal.). P laintiffs therefore discharge and covenant not to sue the United States, including EPA, for any

such claims.

8

. In the event of a dispute between Plaintiff s and EPA concerning the interpretation or implementation of any aspect of this Consent Decree, 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 dispu te. 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.

9 . No motion seeking to enforce this Consent Decree or for contempt of Court

sha ll 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 least ten (10) business days before the filing of such motion

. 10

. The deadline for filing a motion for costs of litigation (including attorney fees) for activities performed prior to entry of the Consent Decree is hereby extended until ninety (90) days after this Consent Decree is entered by the Court. During this period, the Parties shall seek to resolve informally any claim 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 stipulation or motion to extend the deadline to file

such a motion. EPA r eserves the right to oppose any such request.

11 . This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree and to consider any requests for costs of litigation, including attorney fees. Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 11 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 11 of 1512

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 12 . Nothing in the terms o f this Consent Decree 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 n pursuant to section 110(k) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k), approving , disappro ving, or conditionally approving in whole or in part a SIP submi ssion or final action promulgati ng a FIP pursuant to section 110(c)
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410( c )
, 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).

13 . Nothing in this Consent Decree 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 Consent Decree, including the discretion to alter, amend, or revise any final actions promulgated pursuant to this Consent Decree. EPA’s obligation to perform each action specified in this Consent

Decree does not constitute a limitation or modification of EPA’s discretion within the meaning of this paragraph.

14 . Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Consent Decree shall be

construed as an admis sion of any issue of fact 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.

1 5 . Plaintiff s reserve the right to seek additional costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred subsequent to entry of this Consent De cree . EPA reserves the right to oppose any such request for additional costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees.

16 . It is hereby ex pressly understood and agreed that this Consent Decree was jointly drafted by Plaintiff s and EPA. Accordingly, the parties hereby agree that any and all rules of construction to the effect that ambiguity is construed against the drafting party

shall be in applicable in any dispute concerning the terms, meaning, or interpretation of

this Consent Decree. Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 12 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 12 of 1513

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 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 Dec ree in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to CAA

section 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g). After this Consent Decree has undergone notice and comment, the Administrator and/or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall promptl y consider any written comments in determining whether to withdraw or withhold their consent to the Consent Decree, in accordance with CAA section 113(g). If the Administrator and/or the Attorney General do not elect to withdraw or withhold consent,

EPA s hall promptly file a motion that requests that the Court enter this Consent Decree.

18 . Any notices required or provided for by this Consent Decree shall be in writing, via electronic mail or other means, and sent to the following (or to any new

address o f counsel as filed and listed in the docket of the above

- captioned matter, at a future date):

F or Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Neighbors for Clean Air :
Robert Ukeiley Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 255 Mou ntain 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@biologi caldiversity.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 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 13 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 13 of 1514

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 Email: Debra.Carfora @usdoj.go v

19 . EPA and Plaintiff s recognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed upon EPA under this Consent Decree can only be undertaken using appropriated funds legally available for such purpose. No provision of this Consent Decree shall be interpr eted 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.

20 . If for any reason the Court should decline to appr ove 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 representa tives of Plaintiff s and Defendant certify that they are fully authorized by the party they represent to consent to the Court’s entry of the

terms and conditions of this Decree. SO ORDERED on this _____ day of

_______ , 201 6

.

________________________________ SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF S :

/s/ Robert Ukeiley Robert Ukeiley, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 255 Mountain Meadows Road Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone (303) 442

- 4033 Email: ruk eiley@igc.org

Jonathan Evans (Cal. Bar #247376) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 14 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 14 of 1515

C ASE N O

. 4 :1 5

- CV

- 4663

- SBA Consent D ecree 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 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510

- 844

- 7100 x318 Fax: 510

- 844

- 7150 email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org Counsel for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Dive rsity, Center for Environmental Health, and N

eighbo r s for Clean Air

C OUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division

/s/ Debra J. Carfora 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 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 15 of 15 Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 28 Filed 06/02/16 Page 15 of 15