Rule2026-11731
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards; California; San Joaquin Valley; Error Correction
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 11, 2026
Effective
July 13, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
In response to a court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting our July 22, 2020 final action erroneously granting a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the San Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, and is now denying California's extension request. The EPA is also finalizing our determination that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31, 2019 unextended attainment date. This determination is based on monitored air quality data from 2017 through 2019. As a result of this final determination, the State of California will be required to submit a revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) that, among other elements, provides for expeditious attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and for a five percent annual reduction in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor pollutant.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35418-35424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11731]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2026-1257; FRL-13247-02-R9]
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards;
California; San Joaquin Valley; Error Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 35419]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a court decision, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is correcting our July 22, 2020 final action erroneously
granting a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 188(e) attainment date extension
for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the
San Joaquin Valley from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024, and is
now denying California's extension request. The EPA is also finalizing
our determination that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area failed
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the December 31,
2019 unextended attainment date. This determination is based on
monitored air quality data from 2017 through 2019. As a result of this
final determination, the State of California will be required to submit
a revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) that,
among other elements, provides for expeditious attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and for a five percent annual reduction
in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan
precursor pollutant.
DATES: This rule is effective July 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2026-1257. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Geographic Strategies
and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3877; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#197e6b7871787437786a71757c606b597c6978377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="442336252c25296a25372c28213d36042134256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Summary of the Proposed Action
Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established NAAQS for
certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria
pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established. In 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS by lowering the level from 65 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\).\1\ The 24-hour standards are based on a three-year
average of 98th percentile 24-hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations. The EPA established these standards after considering
substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations above these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006); 40 CFR 50.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA initially designated the San Joaquin Valley \2\ as a
nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
effective December 14, 2009,\3\ and subsequently reclassified the area
as a ``Serious'' nonattainment area for these NAAQS on January 20,
2016.\4\ On July 22, 2020, the EPA approved the State's attainment plan
for meeting the Serious area attainment planning requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS (referred to herein as the ``SJV
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'') and approved the State's request for an
extension of the attainment date from December 31, 2019, to December
31, 2024, under section 188(e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area
covers San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Merced County, Madera
County, Fresno County, Tulare County, Kings County, and the valley
portion of Kern County. For the precise boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area, see 40 CFR
81.305.
\3\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\4\ 81 FR 2993 (January 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2026, the EPA proposed two actions related to the San
Joaquin Valley and the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\5\ First,
the EPA proposed to correct our July 22, 2020, final rule granting a
CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024,
and to instead deny the extension request. The EPA proposed this action
in response to a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA (``Medical
Advocates''),\6\ which established that the EPA was mistaken in its
approval of the aggregate commitment in the SJV PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.
Because the Agency had relied on its approval of the aggregate
commitment in its decision to also grant the attainment date
extension,\7\ the EPA reasoned that it was in error to grant the
extension. Thus, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), the EPA proposed to
revise its granting of the extension and to instead deny the extension.
The EPA explained that if finalized, the action would have the effect
of reestablishing the December 31, 2019 attainment date for the San
Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 91 FR 16614 (April 2, 2026).
\6\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. vs. EPA, 20-72780
(9th Cir. 2022).
\7\ 91 FR 16614, 16616, and 16617 (April 2, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, based on our proposal to reestablish the December 31, 2019
attainment date, and in accordance with CAA section 179(c)(1), the EPA
proposed to determine that the San Joaquin Valley Serious nonattainment
area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the
December 31, 2019 applicable attainment date. This proposed
determination was based on quality-assured and certified data from 2017
through 2019.
The April 2, 2026 proposed rulemaking described the CAA
requirements that would apply if the EPA were to finalize the finding
of failure to attain.\8\ Our proposal explained that CAA section 189(d)
establishes that a state will submit the required SIP revision within
12 months after the applicable attainment date; however, because the
submission deadline for a revised plan pursuant to CAA section 189(d)
has already passed, it is impossible for the State to submit a revision
by that date. Consistent with the EPA's past practice when application
of the PM-specific requirements of subpart 4 would be impractical, we
proposed to apply the applicable deadline found in CAA subpart 1,
section 179(d)(1) and require that California submit a SIP revision
that complies with CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) within one year of
the EPA's final determination that the San Joaquin Valley area failed
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 16619-16620.
\9\ CAA section 179(d)(1) states ``[w]ithin 1 year after the
Administrator publishes the notice under subsection (c)(2) of this
section (relating to notice of failure to attain), each State . . .
shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan. .
.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35420]]
Finally, the April 2, 2026 proposed rulemaking explained that a
final determination by the EPA of failure to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by the Serious area
attainment date would trigger the requirement for the State to
implement contingency measures in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1014.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 91 FR 16614, 16620 (April 2, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
See our April 2, 2026 proposed rulemaking for additional background
and detailed explanation of the rationale for our proposed actions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and Responses
The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking opened on
April 2, 2026, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on May 4, 2026.\12\ During this period, the EPA received 1
comment submission from a coalition of 12 environmental and community
organizations (collectively referred to herein as ``Commenters'').\13\
The comment submission is included in the docket for this action. A
summary of the comment submission and our response thereto follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
\13\ Comment letter dated and received May 4, 2026, from Dan
Ress, Policy Manager, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, et al.
to Ashley Graham, EPA Region 9, Subject: ``Re: Comments on Proposed
Finding of Failure To Attain the 2006 24-Hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Standards; California; San Joaquin Valley; Error Correction; Docket
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2026-1257,'' including Exhibit 1. The 12
environmental and community organizations, in order of appearance in
the letter, are the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; Valley
Improvement Projects (VIP); Little Manila Rising; Californians for
Pesticide Reform; Central California Asthma Collaborative;
Earthjustice; Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment; Clean
Water Action; National Parks Conservation Association; Committee for
a Better Arvin; Medical Advocates for Healthy Air; and Sierra Club,
Kern-Kaweah Chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment
Commenters express support for the EPA's finding of failure to
attain, whether the attainment date was December 31, 2019, or December
31, 2024, and do not take a position on the EPA's proposed error
correction.
However, Commenters oppose the EPA's proposed deadline for
California to submit the attainment plan required under CAA section
189(d) (referred to herein as a ``five percent plan'' \14\) within 12
months of the EPA's final determination that the area failed to attain
by the December 31, 2019 attainment date. Commenters state that ``EPA
unlawfully and arbitrarily relies on an inapplicable deadline in
Subpart 1 of the Act to set this new deadline. The particulate matter-
specific provisions in Subpart 4 and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
Requirements Rule provide for the deadline and those provision [sic]
control here.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We refer to the attainment plan required under CAA section
189(d) as a ``five percent plan'' because among the requirements for
such plan are that the plan provide for attainment of the standards
and, from the date of the SIP submittal until attainment, for an
annual reduction in the emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor within the area of not less than
five percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most
recent inventory prepared for such area. 81 FR 58010, 58100, and
58158 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing to CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(2), Commenters
state that if the attainment date remains December 31, 2024, ``both
Subpart 4 and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule require
California to submit a five percent plan by December 31, 2025.''
Commenters also assert that if the attainment date is reset to December
31, 2019, the State shall submit the five percent plan by December 31,
2020. Commenters note that both of these due dates have passed.
As a result, Commenters argue that ``EPA's proposed rationale for
utilizing the Subpart 1 general provisions to govern the deadline for
the five percent plan is nonsensical and arbitrary because the five
percent plan is past due even if EPA does not correct the attainment
date.'' They state that ``California knew or should have known it would
fail to attain the standard and therefore should have prepared and
submitted a five percent plan by December 31, 2025.'' Commenters
explain that in their view, CAA section 189(d) mandates the deadline
for submission of the five percent plan and does not contain an
exception to this deadline nor any discretion to the EPA to apply the
subpart 1 deadline if compliance is impracticable or impossible. Thus,
they argue that ``the plain language and best reading of section 189(d)
provide the deadline for a five percent plan and EPA's proposed action
to depart from that deadline is unlawful and arbitrary.''
Regarding the EPA's citation in the proposed rulemaking to Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals case law regarding use of subpart 1 deadlines
when compliance with a subpart 4 deadline is impracticable, Commenters
state that the EPA's reliance on the Association of Irritated Residents
v. EPA, 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) case (``AIR''), is incorrect.
Commenters state that the problem in AIR was that subpart 4 did not
provide an attainment date for a CAA section 189(d) five percent plan.
They state that the Court affirmed the use of a subpart 1 date because
CAA section 189(d) did not provide an attainment date, and nothing in
subpart 4 prohibited the EPA from relying on subpart 1 to set a new
attainment date. Commenters argue that the issue of when a CAA section
189(d) plan is due is different because ``section 189(d) expressly
answers the question of when a state must submit a five percent plan.''
They argue that this CAA section 189 statutory language controls.
Finally, Commenters state that the fact that the deadline set forth
in CAA section 189(d) has passed does not leave the EPA without a path
forward, asserting that the ``statutory scheme'' requires the EPA to
make a determination that the State has failed to submit a complete
SIP, as provided in CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
Response
We agree with the Commenters that both subpart 4 of the statute and
the regulations implementing that part of the statute provide that a
state shall submit a CAA section 189(d) five percent plan within 12
months of failing to attain by the applicable attainment date; \15\
however, neither subpart 4 nor our implementing regulations establish a
deadline for submittal of a plan if the date provided in CAA section
189(d) has already passed. Commenters suggest that the EPA must read
the statute to require the EPA to use a retroactive deadline and to
immediately issue a finding of failure to submit. Such a reading would
start sanctions clocks against the State and empower the EPA to
immediately regulate in place of the State because the State did not
take an action that it had neither notice nor legal obligation to
undertake at the time urged by the Commenters. For the reasons set
forth in the remainder of this section, and consistent with the CAA's
principles of cooperative federalism, we do not agree that this is the
best reading of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CAA section 189(d); 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 179 and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 52.31
establish a framework that imposes sanctions upon states in the event
that the EPA finds that a state has failed to take a statutorily-
required action, such as submittal of a required nonattainment plan,
and fails to timely correct this deficiency. Under this framework, 18
months after such a finding an area that fails to correct the
deficiency will be subject to increased emissions offset requirements
for new or modified sources in the area and if such deficiency persists
24 months after the finding, the area will face the loss of Federal
highway funds--a potentially
[[Page 35421]]
severe consequence for states relying on Federal highway funding.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 83 FR 62720 (December 6, 2018) (an EPA finding that
California failed to submit complete SIP revisions for
implementation of the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley, resulting in the start of sanctions and FIP
clocks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, in addition to sanctions, CAA section 110(c) requires the
EPA to implement a Federal implementation plan (FIP) ``at any time
within two years after the Administrator . . . finds that a state has
failed to make a required submission. . . .'' \17\ Importantly, the Act
allows the EPA to issue a FIP ``at any time'' following such a finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CAA section 110(c)(1) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters essentially ask the EPA to resurrect a deadline for plan
submittal that has long passed and to enforce the consequences of
missing this retroactively-imposed deadline upon the State by issuing a
finding of failure to submit. Such a finding would immediately start
sanctions clocks and empower the EPA to issue a FIP, which would impose
the EPA's direct regulatory authority on emissions sources in the San
Joaquin Valley.
Given the Act's carefully constructed balance between state and
Federal authority, the EPA believes that a clear indication from
Congress would be required in order to interpret the statute in a way
that would lead to the type of extraordinary results that Commenters
suggest. The EPA does not believe that Congress intended the EPA to be
able to impose sanctions clocks on a state by determining ``state
failure'' to meet a deadline that it did not have notice of at the
time. Even more so the EPA does not believe that Congress intended the
EPA to be able to immediately impose its own regulatory requirements in
place of a state's based on such a retroactive finding.
Commenters appear to suggest that the State should have submitted
such a plan without an EPA finding that the area failed to attain. They
write that ``California knew or should have known it would fail to
attain the standard and therefore should have prepared and submitted a
five percent plan by December 31, 2025.'' Such an anticipatory
submission is not required under the Act.
A CAA section 189(d) five percent plan is required ``[i]n the case
of a Serious [particulate matter] nonattainment area in which the
[particulate matter] standard is not attained by the applicable
attainment date.'' However, the statute tasks the EPA with determining
whether or not an area has attained the standard by a particular
date.\18\ A state is not free to substitute its judgment for the EPA's
on this question. Accordingly, a state is not required to submit a CAA
section 189(d) five percent plan until the EPA makes a finding that the
area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment
date.\19\ A state is not required to guess whether the EPA will
determine that the area attained and submit a plan based on the
possibility that the EPA will find that the area failed to attain by
the applicable deadline. While a state is free to begin to work on a
plan if it expects that it may not attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date, the best reading of the Act is that it does
not empower the EPA to compel a state to submit a five percent plan in
the absence of an EPA determination that an area failed to attain by
the applicable deadline. By the same token, the best reading of the
statute is that it does not require imposition of immediate sanction
clocks or permit the EPA to issue an immediate FIP if the state does
not submit a plan in advance of an EPA finding of failure to
attain.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See CAA section 179(c).
\19\ The EPA's determination that the San Joaquin Valley failed
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is not a simple
ministerial act. It is an essential point in this process and one
that relies on analyses by the EPA's technical experts. As stated in
our proposal, the EPA reviews all data to determine an area's air
quality status with respect to each NAAQS, an extensive data set
that spans 17 ambient monitors over 3 years. Our proposal explains
the EPA's role in assuring that complete, quality-assured data is
evaluated in accordance with EPA regulations. In some instances,
these regulations allow for or require extrapolation or exclusion of
data and the EPA's eventual conclusion is not, in many instances,
something that a state ``kn[ows] or should know.''
\20\ In this case, not only did the State not have notice in the
form of an EPA finding that the area failed to attain the standard
by the applicable attainment date, but the State could not be aware,
until the EPA finalizes the present action, of what the applicable
attainment date actually is. As explained in our proposal, this is
due to the uncertainty regarding how the Medical Advocates case
impacted the CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension that the
EPA erroneously granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to such a submission not being required until the EPA
issues a finding of failure to attain, the state will lack information
necessary to make such a submission until the EPA issues such a
finding. In the AIR case, cited in the EPA's proposal and in the
comment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's
application of the subpart 1 attainment date provisions for the purpose
of a CAA section 189(d) five percent plan. Critically, the CAA section
189(d) attainment date established by the EPA was ``as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of [the EPA's
finding of failure to attain]. . . .rdquo; \21\ Because the outermost
attainment date for a CAA section 189(d) five percent plan depends on
the date of the EPA's finding that the area failed to attain, the State
lacks information that is critical to its CAA section 189(d) five
percent plan submission until the EPA issues a finding of failure to
attain. Accordingly, Commenters' suggestion that California should have
submitted its plan by December 31, 2025, is simply not practical. The
State cannot be expected to make an attainment plan submission without
knowing the outermost attainment date. It is not until the EPA issues a
finding of failure to attain that a state is on notice that the area
has failed to attain and is in a position to determine the new date by
which the CAA section 189(d) five percent plan must show attainment.
Accordingly, the EPA believes that a state must have a reasonable
amount of time after that point to do the work of designing and
submitting the updated plan (including the necessary public engagement
required under the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Emphasis added. The EPA applied the provisions of CAA
section 179(d) to establish this attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute is also clear that Congress intended states to have
sufficient time to adopt an updated plan before the threat of sanctions
and a FIP are imposed. While Commenters suggest that the ``statutory
scheme'' requires the EPA to implement a retroactive deadline and issue
a finding of failure to submit, the EPA believes this is an overly
narrow reading of the statute. The statutory scheme, both in subpart 1
and in subpart 4, acknowledges the need for a state to have a
reasonable period of time to develop its plan. In subpart 1, which the
EPA proposed to apply in this instance because compliance with subpart
4 is impracticable, Congress has given states a year from the EPA's
finding of failure to attain to submit an updated plan.\22\ However,
subpart 4 as well evinces Congress's intent to provide states with time
to develop and submit a plan. Because the Act provides up to six months
after the attainment deadline for the EPA to make a determination of
attainment,\23\ the deadline in CAA section 189(d) for submittal of a
plan within twelve months after the attainment date suggests that
Congress intended a state to have 6 to 12 months from the EPA's
attainment determination to submit its plan before the EPA would be
able to start sanctions and FIP clocks. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed
[[Page 35422]]
deadline of 12 months from the effective date of our final action is
both expressly called for by subpart 1 and within the range of dates
that the statute would provide under the prospective application of
subpart 4. The EPA believes that this interpretation is more in line
with the statutory scheme than retroactively applying a December 31,
2020 deadline that the State could not possibly make and then punishing
the State for failing to make this deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See CAA section 179(d)(1).
\23\ CAA section 179(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interpretation is in line with past Agency actions in which
unusual circumstances led to situations in which the CAA's statutory
deadlines had passed.
In Wildearth Guardians v. EPA, 830 F.3d 529 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(``Wildearth Guardians''), the EPA, following a court decision
clarifying the applicability of subpart 4 versus subpart 1 of the
statute, ``made certain adjustments to those deadlines in an effort to
avoid treating states as having already missed deadlines of which they
were never aware.'' Petitioners challenged the EPA's action arguing
that the EPA was bound to apply the statutory deadlines regardless of
whether those deadlines had already passed, and that the EPA was
obligated to issue immediate findings of failure to submit for those
dates that had lapsed. The court held that ``EPA reasonably acted
within its statutory authority in adopting new deadlines aimed to avoid
imposing retroactive burdens on states seeking to achieve compliance
with governing air quality standards.''
Similarly, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
(``Sierra Club'') the EPA reclassified the District of Columbia from
``Serious'' to ``Severe'' nonattainment. The Agency established a new
deadline for the District's submission of a Severe-area nonattainment
plan because the original statutory deadline for such plans had already
passed. The Court rejected Sierra Club's argument that the original
statutory deadline should govern, reasoning that such a result ``would
give the reclassification retroactive effect by holding the States in
default of their submission obligations before the events necessary to
trigger that obligation (reclassification) occurred.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the courts consistently upholding the EPA's
authority to administer the statute in a way that avoids holding states
to retroactive deadlines, courts have also looked favorably upon the
EPA looking to subpart 1 when a workable deadline is not found in
subpart 4. In AIR, the EPA applied the CAA subpart 1, section 179,
requirements to set the outermost attainment date for a CAA section
189(d) five percent plan submission because subpart 4 was silent as to
the attainment date requirements for such a plan. Petitioners
challenged the EPA's application of the subpart 1 deadline, arguing
that the more specific subpart 4 provisions foreclosed the EPA's use of
the more general subpart 1 requirements. The court held that no
language in subpart 4 prohibits the EPA's application of the general
provisions and that the overall statutory scheme supported the EPA's
position that the EPA may look to CAA section 179 to set a new
attainment deadline.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The EPA notes that in a recent unreported decision, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the EPA's construction of
the statute as permitting the more general subpart 1 provisions in
place of the subpart 4 requirements to grant the State's request for
a one-year attainment date extension. Although the court ultimately
remanded the EPA's extension based on the court's finding that the
EPA's regulations unambiguously prohibited an extension in that
particular situation, no such regulatory prohibition exists in the
present case. See Little Manila Rising v. EPA, 24-6990 (9th Cir.
February 24, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that the same principles that decided those cases
apply here. Most notably, as in Wildearth Guardians, the EPA is here
faced with the unusual circumstance of a court decision impacting the
applicable deadlines for attainment planning. Here, as explained in our
proposal, the Ninth Circuit's Medical Advocates decision vacated part
of the EPA's rule approving a prior extension of the attainment
deadline. In this action, the EPA is correcting its erroneous granting
of a CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension for the area,
resetting the deadline to December 31, 2019. Because the December 31,
2020 submission due date that would follow from that correction has
long passed, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to similarly set a
prospective deadline to avoid the consequences that would come with the
retroactive application of the December 31, 2020 deadline. As the EPA
explained in the action that was the subject of the Sierra Club
decision, ``[a] failure to meet an obligation, especially one
accompanied by sanctions, cannot occur in advance of the imposition of
that obligation.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 68 FR 3410, 3414 (January 24, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the consequences of adopting an interpretation that
would retroactively hold the State to a deadline that it had no notice
of at the time, the EPA concludes, as it did in the AIR case, that
looking to subpart 1 for a prospective deadline for the State is most
in line with the text of the Act and the overall statutory scheme.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in our proposed action and herein, the
EPA is finalizing the correction to our previous action erroneously
granting a CAA section 188(e) attainment date extension for the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley and is now
finalizing our denial of the extension. With this action, we are
reestablishing the December 31, 2019 unextended attainment date for the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
Based on our final action reestablishing the December 31, 2019
attainment date, and in accordance with CAA section 179(c)(1), the EPA
is finalizing our determination that the San Joaquin Valley Serious
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 2019. This determination is based on quality-assured and certified
air quality monitoring data from 2017 through 2019.
As a result of the final determination that the San Joaquin Valley
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the State of
California is required under CAA sections 179(d) and 189(d) to submit,
within one year of this final determination, a revision to the SIP for
the San Joaquin Valley.\27\ The SIP revision must, among other
elements, demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards within
the time period provided under CAA section 179(d), provide for an
annual reduction in the emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor pollutant within the area of not less than
five percent until attainment,\28\ demonstrate reasonable further
progress, and include contingency measures. The requirement for a new
attainment demonstration under CAA section 189(d) also triggers the
requirement for a SIP revision for quantitative milestones under CAA
section 189(c) that are to be achieved every three years until
redesignation to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The EPA notes that, based on the text of CAA section
179(d)(1), this one-year period is based on the date of publication
of this action, not its effective date.
\28\ 81 FR 58010, 58100, and 58158 (August 24, 2016). The EPA
defines PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor(s) as those PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors required to be regulated in the applicable attainment
plan and/or nonattainment new source review program. Id. at 58152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new attainment date is set by CAA section 179(d)(3), which
relies upon section 172(a)(2) to establish a new attainment date but
with a different starting point than provided in section
[[Page 35423]]
172(a)(2). Under section 179(d)(3), the new attainment date is the date
by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than five years from the date of the final determination
of failure to attain. The EPA may extend the attainment date for a
period no greater than 10 years from the final determination,
considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and
feasibility of pollution control measures.
Finally, as a result of this final determination that the San
Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
by the Serious area attainment date, the State is required to implement
its contingency measures for these NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1014.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The State's contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS consist of CARB's ``Smog
Check Contingency Measure,'' the District's contingency provisions
in Rule 8051 (``Open Areas''), and the District's contingency
provisions in Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning
Heaters'') (89 FR 80749, October 4, 2024). A previous EPA finding
that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards constituted the first triggering event of two triggers for
CARB's Smog Check Contingency Measure (90 FR 46065, September 25,
2025). Thus, this final determination of failure to attain the 2006
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS constitutes a second and final
triggering event for that measure in the San Joaquin Valley. This
final determination of failure to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS constitutes a first triggering event of two
triggers for the Rule 4901 (``Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood
Burning Heaters'') contingency provisions and the only triggering
event for the Rule 8051 (``Open Areas'') contingency provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by State law.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications. It will neither
impose substantial direct costs on federally recognized Tribal
governments nor preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2026. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 29, 2026.
Michael Martucci,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.247 is amended by adding paragraph (t) to read as
follows:
[[Page 35424]]
Sec. 52.247 Control Strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.
* * * * *
(t) Determination of failure to attain. Effective July 13, 2026,
the EPA has determined that the San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2019. This
determination triggers the requirements of CAA sections 179(d) and
189(d) for the State of California to submit a revision to the
California SIP for the San Joaquin Valley to the EPA by June 11, 2027.
The SIP revision must include, among other elements, a demonstration of
expeditious attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
within the time period provided under CAA section 179(d) and provide
for an annual reduction in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor pollutant within the area of not less than
five percent until attainment.
[FR Doc. 2026-11731 Filed 6-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.