Proposed Approval of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule Removal

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 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.

A private citizen opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule, arguing that it will harm public health and favor corporations over "common" people. The commenter expresses concern that the action represents a step backward toward industrial-era pollution and threatens the protections established by the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

An individual commenter opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule, arguing that it provides essential protection for environmental justice communities. They also suggest that the US EPA should delay its decision until litigation regarding the legislative mandate for removal is concluded.

Susan Upton, a private resident of Ohio, opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance rule. She argues that the rule is a critical tool for environmental protection and accountability, and she believes the EPA should wait for litigation regarding the state's legislative mandate to conclude before making a final decision.