Environmental Litigation
EPA Proposed Consent Decree in Little Manila Rising v. EPA Lawsuit
EPA published a proposed consent decree in Little Manila Rising v. EPA on November 5, 2026, with public comments due December 7, 2026. Here is the record.
Advertisement
Advertisement
On this page
Something in this article wrong, out of date, or missing its source? Tell the editorial desk.
The Environmental Protection Agency published a proposed consent decree in Little Manila Rising, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. in the Federal Register on November 5, 2026. The notice, document number 2026-22548 at 91 FR 69844, requests public comment through December 7, 2026. The decree would resolve all claims in the case by setting a deadline for the EPA to take final action.
At a glance
- The Federal Register notice is document 2026-22548, published November 5, 2026, at 91 FR 69844 and spanning pages 69844 to 69845.
- The underlying case is Little Manila Rising, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:26-cv-04106-MMC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Written comments must be received by December 7, 2026, according to the notice’s dates line.
- The EPA opened docket EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242 on Regulations.gov for comments, with the docket listing a comment end date of December 8, 2026.
- The notice states that the proposed decree would resolve all claims in the case by establishing a deadline for the EPA to take final action as specified in the decree.
What did the EPA actually publish?
The document is a notice of a proposed consent decree with a request for public comment, not a rule and not a final agency decision. The EPA filed it under the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the notice appears in the Federal Register for November 5, 2026. The document carries the docket identifiers EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242 and FRL-13676-01-OGC.
The Federal Register entry includes a supporting document titled “Proposed Consent Decree - Little Manila Rising et al. v. USEPA,” filed in the same docket as document EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242-0002. The notice itself is two pages long.
What is established vs. what is alleged
The complaint is an allegation. According to the notice’s abstract, three plaintiffs filed a complaint on May 5, 2026 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division: Little Manila Rising, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Sierra Club. The complaint alleged that the EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act.
The subject of that alleged failure was final action on a state implementation plan revision. In the notice’s description, the State of California submitted a SIP revision pertaining to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s attainment plan for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards. A SIP is a state’s plan for meeting federal air quality requirements under the Clean Air Act.
Established by the document: the EPA published the notice, assigned it document number 2026-22548, and opened the docket for comment. Alleged and not decided: that the EPA missed a nondiscretionary duty. The notice does not state that any court has ruled on that allegation.
Where the claims stand procedurally
The claims are in a single federal district court case, Little Manila Rising, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:26-cv-04106-MMC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as of November 2026. There is no multidistrict litigation here; MDL, or multidistrict litigation, is a procedure that consolidates related federal cases before one judge, and no federal consolidation exists for this matter. There is likewise no bellwether trial process, the practice of selecting representative cases for early trial, associated with this case.
The case is at the proposed-consent-decree stage. The EPA’s notice states the proposed decree would resolve all claims by setting a deadline for final agency action. The notice does not give the date of that deadline. It also does not state whether the court has entered the decree, scheduled a fairness hearing, or set any hearing on the proposal.
How the comment process works
The notice asks for written comments on the proposed consent decree and directs them to docket EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242. The comment link in the Federal Register entry points to Regulations.gov at EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242-0001, and the docket title names the case and its docket number.
The notice’s dates line sets a receipt deadline of December 7, 2026 for written comments. The same Federal Register entry shows a comment closing date of December 7, 2026, while the Regulations.gov docket record lists a comment end date of December 8, 2026. The notice also records that late comments are not allowed in the docket system and that zero comments had been counted when the entry was published.
A consent decree is a settlement agreement entered as a court order. This one is described in the notice as proposed, which means the public comment step is open and the decree is not yet described as entered. For background on how citizen suits under this statute proceed against the agency, see Clean Air Act citizen suit consent decrees. For related reading on how the EPA frames federal air standards, see National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Key dates
- May 5, 2026: Little Manila Rising, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Sierra Club filed the complaint in the Northern District of California, per the notice.
- November 5, 2026: the EPA published the notice of proposed consent decree at 91 FR 69844 and opened docket EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242 for comment.
- December 7, 2026: deadline for written comments to be received, per the notice’s dates line and the entry’s comments-close field.
- December 8, 2026: comment end date recorded in the Regulations.gov docket listing.
What this does not establish
The record supplied here does not include the text of the proposed consent decree itself, so the specific deadline the EPA would face, and any other terms, are not stated in this article. The notice does not record a court ruling on the allegation, does not state that the decree has been entered, and does not describe a fairness hearing or approval order. It does not give a deadline date for the EPA’s final action, an emissions figure, an air quality measurement, or a health finding. It also does not state a filing date for the notice beyond its November 5, 2026 publication, and it does not address any effect on residents of the San Joaquin Valley.
Frequently asked questions
What is the EPA proposed consent decree in Little Manila Rising v. EPA?
The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of proposed consent decree in Little Manila Rising, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:26-cv-04106-MMC, in the Federal Register on November 5, 2026, as document 2026-22548 at 91 FR 69844. The notice states that the decree would resolve all claims in the case by setting a deadline for the EPA to take final action. The notice also requests public comment on the proposal.
When are comments due on the EPA proposed consent decree?
The notice’s dates line states that written comments must be received by December 7, 2026. The Federal Register entry shows the same comments-close date, while the Regulations.gov docket EPA-HQ-OGC-2026-9242 lists a comment end date of December 8, 2026. Commenters should treat the notice’s own December 7, 2026 receipt deadline as the operative date in the published text.
What did the plaintiffs allege in the Little Manila Rising complaint?
The notice states that Little Manila Rising, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Sierra Club filed the complaint on May 5, 2026 in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to take final action on a California SIP revision. That revision concerned the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s attainment plan for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standards.
Has a court approved the EPA proposed consent decree?
The record supplied here does not show that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has entered or approved the decree. The document is a proposed consent decree published for comment, and the Federal Register entry describes it that way. No ruling, approval order, or hearing date appears in the notice.
Sources
CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.
Advertisement
Advertisement