Proposed Approval of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule Removal

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. They argue that the rule is a necessary tool for citizens to sue polluters who harm public health, quality of life, and property values.

A retired physician argues that air quality regulations are essential for public health and should not be sacrificed for industrial profits. He cites historical improvements in air quality and emphasizes the need to continue addressing pollution to protect the public.

The commenter expresses strong opposition to the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule, arguing that it prioritizes corporate profits over public health. They highlight the negative impact of smog on health and criticize the lack of consideration for safety and humanity in the proposed action.

Izzy Richards, a first-year medical student, opposes the removal of the Ohio Air Nuisance Rule. The commenter argues that the rule is a necessary tool for protecting public health from air pollution and that its removal would primarily benefit polluters while endangering patients with respiratory conditions.

Sandy Bihn opposes the removal of the Air Nuisance Rule from Ohio's federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP). The commenter argues that the rule is a critical tool for holding polluters accountable and protecting public health from air emissions, particularly from CAFOs.