How to submit a public comment on Ohio's E-Check Ease Act

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WJW) — A plan to make Ohio's biannual vehicle emissions testing easier will soon go before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval, and state regulators want to hear from Ohio drivers.
The E-Check Ease Act, introduced by state Reps. Bill Roemer (R-Richfield) and Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge Township), was incorporated into the state's biennial transportation budget bill signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine at the end of March.
PHOTOS: Truck goes off road, US 422 ramp closed
Under Ohio's E-Check program, residents in seven counties — Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit — who own cars that are between 4 and 25 years old are required to have their emissions inspected every two years. A passing inspection is required for vehicle registration in those seven counties.
The proposed change would expand the exemption for newer cars from four years old to six years old. Hybrid vehicles that are seven years old or newer would also be exempt.
The bill also allows vehicle owners to forego inspections entirely and obtain an 'alternative emissions certificate' from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, attesting that their car meets state emissions laws 'to the best of their knowledge.'
That attestation could be rejected if the EPA determines it was falsified or if the driver was cited in the past two years for excessive exhaust or a noisy muffler, or if their vehicle was in a collision in the prior two years which caused 'substantial' internal damage. Rejected owners would then have to get the car inspected.
The Ohio EPA is required to submit the new certification process to the U.S. EPA, which must decide whether it complies with the federal Clean Air Act before it can move ahead. If approved, the Ohio EPA would then implement the state-level changes.
The public comment period for the bill opened earlier this month and runs through June 2. Public comments can be emailed to DAPC-Comments@epa.ohio.gov through then. The Ohio EPA is then expected to respond to the public comments and submit the changes to the U.S. EPA.
'For 30 years, Northeast Ohio has been unfairly burdened by E-Check,' Roemer is quoted in a Wednesday news release. 'It is far past time to address this problem, and I encourage citizens to reach out to eviscerate this burden.'
Bond set at $2 million as Aliza Sherman's alleged killer appears in court: I-Team
State Rep. Sean Brennan (D-Parma) in a Wednesday news release said the E-Check program 'may have been well-intentioned' when it was created in 1996, but there's no evidence it has actually reduced vehicle emissions since then.
He said drivers actually burn about 600,000 gallons of gas per year just to comply with the mandate.
'The $11 million the state spends would be better spent on conservation education and public transit,' he is quoted in the release.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

San Francisco Chronicle​

6 hours ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards

The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.

Yahoo

7 hours ago

• Yahoo

What is the Prenatal Equal Protection Act? New bill would effectively ban abortion in Ohio

(WJW) — On Wednesday, Republican State Reps. Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman are set to introduce a controversial new bill at the Ohio Statehouse that would ban abortion in the Buckeye State. The legislation is called the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, and it aims to extend full legal rights to fetuses from the moment of fertilization. Bagworm outbreak threat growing in Ohio, OSU warns 'We are trying to create a constitutional debate in which we believe the state's constitution would be superseded by the U.S. Constitution,' said pro-life activist Austin Beigel, who helped craft the bill. Beigel, a member of End Abortion Ohio, said the legislation is about ensuring what he sees as equal protection for all life — born or unborn. 'To simply say this is a person in the womb, out of the womb — we know they are human. We believe all people deserve legal protection under the law,' he said. Supporters of the bill argue it is not about politics, but about morality. 'It is not going to permit the killing of innocent human beings, innocent people,' Beigel added. But opponents said the bill defies the will of Ohio voters, who passed a constitutional amendment in 2023 explicitly protecting access to abortion. 'I mean, we knew on Nov. 7, 2023, that there would be plans to undermine the will of the Ohio voter,' said Jordyn Close, deputy director of the Ohio Women's Alliance. Close said she first learned of the proposed legislation last week and was troubled by what she found. 'This bill does not account for any special circumstances. It does not account for any real-life realities for Ohioans who need abortion care,' she said. Baby delivered from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia The bill argues that Ohio's constitutional amendment legalizing abortion should be considered invalid, claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause. But Close believes that argument won't hold up in court. 'Our fantastic legal team and legal scholars will be able to defeat this,' she said. Supporters of the legislation are expected to hold a rally inside the Statehouse from 2:30 to 4 p.m. on Wednesday as the bill is officially filed. Whether the bill gains traction in the legislature remains to be seen, but the fight over abortion rights in Ohio appears far from over. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Wall Street Journal

9 hours ago

• Wall Street Journal

Justice Jackson's Strange Lament

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Friday that oil refiners can challenge California's electric-vehicle mandate. The decision shouldn't have been controversial, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent accusing her colleagues of favoring 'moneyed interests' deserves a rebuttal. Refiners challenged a 2013 Environmental Protection Agency waiver (Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA) letting California impose its own greenhouse gas emissions standards and EV quotas. The Biden Administration issued a separate waiver that applies through 2035, which President Trump signed a Congressional resolution last week to repeal.