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 8, 2026Comment submitted by Steven SingletonOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the rule, arguing that it creates regulatory uncertainty by simultaneously claiming to be a non-discretionary mandate and a deregulatory relief measure. They criticize the EPA for failing to provide a full accounting of the rule's extensive retroactive scope and for neglecting to conduct a proper reliance-interest analysis for affected businesses and communities.
Read comment → - Jun 13, 2026Anonymous public commentSupportIndividual
The commenter expresses a desire for stricter environmental regulations and the removal of pollutants like pesticides and herbicides. They argue that the EPA should be more aggressive in shutting down polluters rather than favoring industry.
Read comment →