Proposed Approval of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule Removal

The commenter provided an attachment containing a table of Ohio's nonattainment and maintenance status for various criteria pollutants by county. The comment does not express a specific position for or against the proposed removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule.

The comment is submitted on behalf of several individuals and environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Ohio Environmental Council, who oppose the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule (ANR) from the State Implementation Plan. They argue that the ANR is a vital tool for protecting fenceline communities from pollution, that the state's request to remove it is based on an unconstitutional mandate, and that the U.S. EPA's proposed rule ignores previous court findings and the rule's historical role in enforcing National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The Ohio Utilities and Generation (OUG), a trade association representing electric utilities, supports the proposed removal of the Air Nuisance Rule from Ohio's State Implementation Plan. They argue that the rule serves no purpose for meeting air quality standards and that its removal is both legally required by state law and long overdue.

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, and The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association support the Ohio EPA's proposal to remove the Air Nuisance Rule (ANR) from Ohio's State Implementation Plan. They argue that the ANR is an "end-result" provision unrelated to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and that its removal is consistent with EPA's long-standing practice and other states' actions.

The commenter opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule, arguing that it will allow corporations to degrade air quality through data centers and coal-fired plants. They suggest that the state should instead focus on renewable energy sources like solar and wind to reduce pollution.

The commenter argues against the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule from the State Implementation Plan, citing concerns over the loss of citizen enforcement rights and the removal of protections against local pollutants like odors and dust. They contend that removing the rule violates anti-backsliding principles and compromises public health and property values.

The commenter, a resident of an environmental justice community, opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule because it provides essential protection against air pollutants that cause respiratory issues. They argue that the US EPA should delay its decision until litigation regarding the Ohio General Assembly's mandate to remove the rule is concluded.

The commenter opposes the removal of the Air Nuisance Rule from Ohio's federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP). They argue that the rule is a critical tool for holding polluters accountable and protecting public health, and they urge the EPA to deny the state's request to remove it.

The commenter opposes the removal of the Air Nuisance Rule from Ohio's federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP). They argue that the rule is a critical tool for holding polluters accountable and protecting public health, and they urge the EPA to deny the state's request to remove it.