Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
GovernmentOppose
Penalty avoidance
Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule
EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0201-0001NPRM
Comments
31
Last activity Jul 13, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jul 14, 2026
Closed Jul 14, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-23%
-23% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule
Federal Register for Friday, June 12, 2026 (91 FR 35639) (FRL-11817.1-01-OAR)
- Posted
- Jun 12, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 12, 2026 – Jul 14, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-11843
- CFR
- 40 CFR Part 51
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
-23%
Net support
Support10Oppose17Other4
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -23% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Business
1
Individual
4
Government
14
Trade association
1
Advocacy
11
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jun 12, 2026Deadline Jul 14, 2026
Jun 8Jun 15Jun 29Jul 6Jul 13
Support10Oppose17Other4
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Government
36%
50%
14%
Advocacy
18%
64%
18%
Individual
25%
75%
0%
Business
100%
0%
0%
Trade association
100%
0%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Penalty avoidance | Sip requirement continuity | Comment period extension | Retroactive application |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) GovernmentOppose The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) opposes the EPA's proposed rule because it allows states to effec | · | · | · | |
California Air Resources Board (CARB) GovernmentOppose The California Air Resources Board (CARB) opposes the proposed Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule, ar | · | · | · | |
Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Clean Wisconsin, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Ohio Environmental Council, Clean Air AdvocacyOppose A coalition of environmental and public health advocacy organizations opposes the EPA's Ozone Reclassification State Imp | · | · | ||
Indiana Department of Environmental Management GovernmentSupport The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) supports the proposed Ozone Reclassification Rule as it provid | · | · | · | |
Maryland Department of the Environment GovernmentOppose The Maryland Department of the Environment opposes the proposed rule, arguing it creates a loophole that allows states t | · | · | · | |
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality GovernmentOppose The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it fails to adequately addr | · | · | · | |
Prime Mover Institute AdvocacySupport The Prime Mover Institute, a public interest organization, supports the proposed rule because it correctly interprets th | · | · | · |
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
GovernmentOppose
Penalty avoidance
Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Clean Wisconsin, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Ohio Environmental Council, Clean Air
AdvocacyOppose
Penalty avoidance
Sip requirement continuity
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
GovernmentSupport
Comment period extension
Maryland Department of the Environment
GovernmentOppose
Penalty avoidance
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
GovernmentOppose
Sip requirement continuity
Prime Mover Institute
AdvocacySupport
Retroactive application
3 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jul 13, 2026Comment submitted by Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)SupportGovernment📎 Attachment
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) supports the proposed Ozone Reclassification Rule as it provides regulatory flexibility and a more consistent landscape for states. However, they request a 30-day comment period extension and urge the EPA to also rescind previous "bump ups" for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Read comment → - Jul 1, 2026Comment submitted by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)OtherGovernment📎 Attachment
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a regional association of state air pollution control agencies, is requesting a 30-day extension of the public comment period. They argue that additional time is needed for state and local agencies to conduct a thorough review of the complex technical and legal implications of the proposed rule.
Read comment → - Jul 1, 2026Comment submitted by Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)OtherAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a non-partisan multi-state organization, is requesting a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the proposed Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule. They argue that additional time is necessary for state and local agencies to conduct a thorough review of the complex technical and legal implications of the proposal.
Read comment → - Jun 29, 2026Comment submitted by California Air Resources Board (CARB)OtherGovernment📎 Attachment
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period for the proposed Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule. They argue that the current deadline is insufficient for stakeholders to adequately investigate and develop meaningful comments on such a significant proposal.
Read comment → - Jun 18, 2026Comment submitted by Clean Air Task Force et al.SupportAdvocacy📎 Attachment
A coalition of public interest environmental organizations is requesting a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the Ozone Reclassification State Implementation Plan Rule. They argue that the current period is insufficient for the public to meaningfully review the proposal's complex and far-reaching consequences on public health, the environment, and existing Clean Air Act requirements.
Read comment →