Overview
Title
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR Permit Timing
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to change a rule in Ohio so that if an installation permit is being questioned by someone else, they have more time to figure things out. This change makes sure everything fits with the big rules everyone follows, and it shouldn't cause any big problems.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a change to Ohio's state plan for controlling air pollution. This change involves a specific part of Ohio law that allows an installation permit to be extended beyond its initial expiration if it is being appealed by someone other than the owner or operator. The extension period will be the original expiration date plus the time taken to resolve the appeal. The EPA has found that this proposal aligns with federal guidelines and does not have significant regulatory impacts.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revised paragraph of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) into Ohio's state implementation plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This revision will allow for the extension of an installation permit which is the subject of an appeal by a party other than the owner or operator of the air contaminant source. The extension will allow the date of termination of the permit to be no later than eighteen months after the effective date of the permit plus the number of days between the date in which the permit was appealed and the date the appeal was resolved.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register concerns a proposed modification to Ohio's state implementation plan (SIP) for air quality under the Clean Air Act (CAA). It involves a specific provision in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) that allows for extending the duration of an installation permit if it is under appeal. The EPA assesses that this modification aligns with federal regulatory frameworks, indicating no significant regulatory implications.
General Summary
The EPA proposes to approve a change submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) that would integrate a revised paragraph from the Ohio Revised Code into the state's air quality management plan. This change focuses on extending the term of an installation permit when the permit is subject to an appeal by someone other than the owner or operator. The extension period will be the original term of the permit plus the time taken to resolve any appeals. The EPA's assessment suggests that this amendment is consistent with federal guidelines for constructing new air pollution sources, allowing more flexibility in the permit process without influencing emission levels.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One notable issue is the lack of clarity and detail regarding the exact language of the specific paragraph in Ohio law being approved. This omission could lead to misunderstandings, as readers do not have the full context of what the legal change entails. Moreover, the document references numerous federal regulations and executive orders without explicitly explaining their relevance, potentially confusing or overwhelming readers who are not familiar with such legal intricacies. Additionally, while the document asserts that there will be no significant economic impact, it does not offer specific data or analysis in support, which might undermine confidence in these claims.
Public Impact
Broadly, the proposed rule may benefit the public by offering more predictable timelines for projects that require an installation permit, thus potentially reducing delays in construction and related economic activities. This could be particularly advantageous in scenarios where an appeal is filed which could otherwise jeopardize project timelines. From an environmental protection perspective, as the rule does not alter emissions regulations, it should not adversely impact air quality standards intended to protect public health.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders such as businesses and developers that require installation permits for new projects, this proposal provides substantial flexibility and assurance. By allowing for extensions tied to the length of legal proceedings, businesses may avoid penalties or complications due to an expiration occurring amidst unresolved disputes. Conversely, environmental advocacy groups may be concerned about potential loopholes or misapplications of these provisions, even if EPA asserts no impact on emission levels. By keeping checks on permits under scrutiny, it promotes procedural fairness but without transparent and accessible data and language, stakeholder trust could be affected negatively.
Overall, while the proposed amendment appears to offer beneficial revisions to the timing of permit expirations in contested cases, ensuring transparency and clarity in the accompanying documentation will play a crucial role in garnering public support and understanding.
Issues
• The document mentions a specific paragraph in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC 3740.03 (F)(2)(b)(iv)) to be approved into the state's SIP, but the document does not provide the full text of the paragraph being approved, which could lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
• The document references multiple federal regulations and executive orders without detailed explanations of how those apply specifically to this action, potentially leading to a lack of clarity for the layperson or a non-expert audience.
• There is an emphasis on ensuring compatibility with federal regulations and guidelines, but the document lacks detailed examples or scenarios that demonstrate how the changes would be implemented in practice.
• The document repeatedly assures that there is no significant economic impact, but it lacks specific data or analysis to support these claims, which could be perceived as insufficient justification.
• The language used in the document could be perceived as overly complex, especially with numerous legal and procedural references that may not be easily understood by general public readers.