CASE NO. 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 (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

CONSENT DECREE

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 15

Chambers Copy
2 

CASE NO. 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

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiffs 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 

Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA” or “Defendant”);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that EPA has failed to undertake certain nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Air 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 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(“PM2.5”), 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 110(a)(2)(I), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(I); 

section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c), and sections 188 - 189, 42 U.S.C. § 7513 - 7513a; 

WHEREAS, EPA must then determine whether 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 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 15

Chambers Copy
3 

CASE NO. 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

submission within six months, then the submission is deemed complete by operation of 

law after six months. Id.; 

WHEREAS, within 12 months of a determination 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. § 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, were required to make a SIP submission 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, 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 

concerning 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. 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, within 12 months of a determination of 

completeness 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, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, certain 

complete SIP submissions from states intended to address specific requirements related to 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the following designated nonattainment areas, see Am. 

Compl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 18):

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 15

Chambers Copy
4 

CASE NO. 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

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 State Implementation Plan Revision 

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;

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 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” 

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 15

Chambers Copy
5 

CASE NO. 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

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 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.

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.

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

Chambers Copy
6 

CASE NO. 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

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. § 

7428, and the effective date of such disapproval was August, 29, 2013; 

WHEREAS, in Claim 3, Plaintiffs 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 revision 

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. 18): 

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, 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 entering into this Consent Decree, do not 

waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final EPA 

action;

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 15

Chambers Copy
7 

CASE NO. 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

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs 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 the 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, Plaintiffs and EPA agree that this Court 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 section 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. Claims 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 PM2.5

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, 

pursuant to sections 110(k)(2)-(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k)(2)-(4), certain SIP 

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 15

Chambers Copy
8 

CASE NO. 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

submissions from states intended to address specific requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

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 

12, 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 submitted 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 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. 

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; 

Submitted 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

Chambers Copy
9 

CASE NO. 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

AREA ELEMENT(S) DEADLINE

Francisco 

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”

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 

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”

12/8/2016

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 15

Chambers Copy
10 

CASE NO. 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

AREA ELEMENT(S) DEADLINE

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.

2. If any state withdraws a submittal listed above in Paragraph 1(b), then EPA’s 

obligation to take the action required 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 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 actions set forth in Paragraph 1 of this 

Consent Decree and after notice of each final action required by Paragraph 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. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days in which to respond to such a motion, 

unless the parties stipulate 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 pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and upon consideration of any response 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 deadline 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 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

Chambers Copy
11 

CASE NO. 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

 7. Plaintiffs and EPA agree that this Consent Decree shall constitute a complete 

and final settlement of all claims that Plaintiffs have asserted against the United States, 

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 sue 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 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 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.

9. No motion seeking to enforce this Consent 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 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 reserves 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

Chambers Copy
12 

CASE NO. 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

12. Nothing in the terms of 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 taken pursuant to section 110(k) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k), approving, disapproving, or conditionally 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 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 admission 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. 

 15. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek 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 additional 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. 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 inapplicable 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

Chambers Copy
13 

CASE NO. 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

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 

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 promptly 

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 shall 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 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 

Case 4:15-cv-04663-SBA Document 25-1 Filed 05/25/16 Page 13 of 15

Chambers Copy
14 

CASE NO. 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

Email: Debra.Carfora@usdoj.gov 

19. EPA and Plaintiffs 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 

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. 

20. If for any reason the Court should decline 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 Plaintiffs 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 _______, 2016. 

________________________________

SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:

 /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: rukeiley@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

Chambers Copy
15 

CASE NO. 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

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 Environmental Health, and 

Neighbors for Clean Air 

COUNSEL 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

Chambers Copy