Cupp, J.
{¶ 1} This appeal asks us to determine the proper method of calculating the civil penalty to be levied against an industrial facility for noncompliance with the [66]*66terms of its air-pollution-control permit. The appellate court concluded that according to the terms of the Shelly Materials, Inc., permits, the penalty is to be calculated from the initial date of noncompliance until the facility demonstrates that it no longer violates the permits.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the appellate court reached the proper conclusion in this matter, and therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
a. Shelly Company
{¶ 3} The Shelly Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the business of surfacing roads. It owns several subsidiaries, including appellants Shelly Materials, Inc., and Allied Corporation (collectively, “Shelly”).1 Shelly owns multiple hot-mix asphalt facilities in Ohio that support its road-surfacing activities.
{¶ 4} The hot-mix asphalt facilities release pollutants into the air, such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. The facilities are regulated by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) pursuant to air-pollution-control permits issued to Shelly.
b. The Air-Pollwtion^Control Pemiits
{¶ 5} The air-pollution-control permits issued to Shelly have a variety of requirements with which Shelly must comply, including terms that specify the emission limits for the applicable types of pollutants, set operational restrictions, and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
{¶ 6} The permits also prescribe the testing method each Shelly facility must use to establish its compliance with the permit’s emission limit for each pollutant. The prescribed testing method is set forth at Part II, Section (E) of the permits, and specifies:
E. Testing Requirements
1. Compliance with the emission limitations specified in Section A.I of these terms and conditions shall be determined in accordance with the following methods:
a. Emissions Limitation:
[67]*67Applicable Compliance Method:
The permittee shall conduct, or have conducted, emission testing for this emissions unit in accordance with the following requirements:
iv. The test(s) shall be conducted while the emissions unit is operating at or near its maximum capacity, burning on-spec oil and using virgin materials, unless otherwise specified or approved by the Central District Office.
Each air-pollution-control permit further provides that the Shelly permit holder “shall remain in full compliance with all applicable State laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of this permit.”
{¶ 7} In 2002 and 2006, five of Shelly’s hot-mix asphalt facilities performed the facility testing as required by their permits. During the facility testing, these five hot-mix asphalt facilities emitted pollutants in excess of the allowable emission limit set forth in the permits and, in doing so, failed to comply with the maximum-capacity stack-test (“stack-test”) requirement of the permit.2
c. Trial Court Decision
{¶ 8} In July 2007, the state of Ohio, by and through the attorney general, filed suit for injunctive relief and civil penalties. The complaint presented 20 claims for relief. In the complaint, the state alleged that the companies had violated state law and Ohio’s federally approved plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of air-quality standards as required by the federal Clean Air Act, when it
installed and thereafter operated new sources of air pollution without obtaining appropriate permits, modified and thereafter operated existing sources of air pollution without obtaining appropriate permits, exceeded air pollutant emission limitations, burned fuel containing excessive levels of mercury, lead and other hazardous chemical constituents, and violated the terms and conditions of applicable air pollution permits.
[68]*68The state did not allege any violations, or seek to enforce any provision, of the federal act.
{¶ 9} The state’s seventh claim for relief alleged that in 2002 and 2006, the Shelly facilities emitted pollutants in excess of the allowable emission limit set forth in the permits and, in doing so, failed to comply with the stack-test requirement. The state alleged that the Shelly facilities violated R.C. 3704.05(C), which provides that “no person who is the holder of a permit * * * shall violate any of the permit’s terms or conditions.”
{¶ 10} Shelly entered into stipulations with the state in which Shelly admitted liability to various claims in the complaint and acknowledged that when it conducted the stack testing, its facilities emitted pollutants in excess of the allowable amounts set forth in the permits and the facilities violated them respective permits. After a bench trial, the court issued a decision finding for the state on some, but not all, claims for relief. On the state’s seventh claim for relief, the only claim relevant here, the court acknowledged that Shelly did not dispute that on the days of stack testing in which the emissions exceeded the limits set forth in the permits, the permits were violated. The court accepted Shelly’s stipulations as findings of fact.
{¶ 11} In determining the appropriate penalty, the trial court acknowledged that the question remaining to be decided was whether, for purposes of calculating the penalty, the violation should be deemed to have occurred only on the day the facility failed the stack tests and emitted in excess of the permitted emission limitation or whether the violation should be presumed to be continuing until a new stack test demonstrated compliance with the permit.
(¶ 12} The trial court concluded that the violation occurred only on the day on which the facility failed the stack tests. The court accepted Shelly’s argument that the conditions under which Shelly conducted the required stack tests did not represent the facilities’ normal operating conditions and that it operated its facilities within the permitted emission limits. Therefore, the court concluded, it was not reasonable to infer that the violation continued for every day thereafter until a subsequent emission test demonstrated compliance. The court assessed a civil penalty of $4,500 on the seventh claim for relief and a total of $350,123.52 on all claims.
d. Appellate Court Decision
{¶ 13} The state appealed and challenged the manner in which the trial court had calculated the civil penalties. The state asserted that the penalty should be assessed for each day a facility was out of compliance with its permit, which would be from the day it failed the stack testing and continuing until the facility [69]*69demonstrated that it no longer failed the stack test as required by the permit. Under the state’s rationale, the time period for calculating the penalty commenced on the day that the stack test was conducted and showed that the facility exceeded the allowable emission limit of its permit. The last penalty day, according to the state, could be (1) the day on which the facility conducts a subsequent maximum-capacity test and the facility emissions are within the allowable limits of the permit, (2) the day on which the Ohio EPA issues a new permit for the facility with revised emission limits that are the same as or greater than the emission released on the day when the facility conducted its initial emission test, or (3) the day on which the facility could show that it would pass a subsequently conducted maximum-capacity test because intervening facility modifications were made.
{¶ 14} The appellate court sustained the state’s assignment of error in this regard and remanded the matter to the trial court for recalculation of the fine, in its discretion. 191 Ohio App.3d 421, 2010-Ohio-6526, 946 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 66.3
{¶ 15} Thereafter, we accepted Shelly’s appeal under our discretionary jurisdiction. 128 Ohio St.3d 1481, 2011-Ohio-2055, 946 N.E.2d 240.
II. Air-Pollution-Control Legislation
{¶ 16} The principal federal legislation in this matter is the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., which is intended “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources” and to encourage pollution prevention through reasonable federal, state, and local governmental actions. 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1) and (c). Pursuant to the authority of the Clean Air Act, the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) establishes national standards for air quality and certain types of air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. 7409(a)(2) and (b)(1); 40 C.F.R. 50.1 through 50.17. The act also requires that the states adopt and submit to the administrator a plan for specifying how these air-quality standards will be achieved and maintained. 42 U.S.C. 7407(a) and 7410(a). The act anticipates that states will achieve the air-quality standards through use permits, enforcement, and emission monitoring. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a). Enforcement and penalty-calculation provisions are set forth at 42 U.S.C. 7413.
{¶ 17} The purposes of Ohio’s Air Pollution Control Act, R.C. Chapter 3704, are “to protect and enhance the quality of the state’s air resources” and “to enable the state, through the director of environmental protection, to adopt and [70]*70maintain a program for the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution that is consistent with the federal Clean Air Act.” R.C. 3704.02(A)(1) and (2). Ohio’s Air Pollution Control Act states that it is to be construed consistently with the federal Clean Air Act. R.C. 3704.02(B).
{¶ 18} The director of the Ohio EPA is vested with the authority to administer R.C. Chapter 3704. The director is authorized to, among other things, (1) adopt air-quality standards for the state that are no more stringent than counterpart federal standards, (2) adopt emissions-standard rules necessary to meet those standards, (3) adopt rules requiring installation permits from the director as a prerequisite to constructing new sources of air pollution, (4) adopt rules prohibiting the operation of air-contaminant sources without either a permit to operate in compliance with applicable rules or a variance issued by the director, (5) adopt rules pertaining to the issuance, revocation, modification, or denial of variances that authorize emissions in excess of the applicable emission standards, (6) require operators of pollution sources to monitor emissions or air quality and to provide such reports as the director prescribes, and (7) enter upon private or public property for the purpose of making inspections, taking samples, and examining records or reports to ascertain compliance with air-pollution statutes, regulations, or orders. R.C. 3704.03(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), and (L).
{¶ 19} The Ohio EPA director has established administrative rules requiring air-contaminant sources4 to have either a permit to operate or a variance and has adopted rules that govern allowable emissions. Ohio Adm.Code 3745-31-02(A) and 3745-31-09 and Chapters 3745-15 through 3745-26. Variances afford an exemption from the permit-to-operate requirement and authorize, under certain conditions, an air-contaminant source to operate without complying with applicable emission-control requirements. Ohio Adm.Code 3745-31-09(A).
(¶ 20} The Ohio Air Pollution Control Act prohibits certain acts. The most basic of the prohibitions is that “emissions of an air contaminant” shall not be “caused, permitted, or allowed” unless a permit or variance allowing the release of the contaminant has been issued. R.C. 3704.05(A) and (B). See also Ohio Adm.Code 3745-31-02(A). Additional prohibitions particularly relevant to the [71]*71matter under consideration in this case are that “[n]o person who is the holder of [an air-pollution-control] permit * * * shall violate any of its terms or conditions,” and that “[n]o person shall violate any order, rule, or determination of the director issued, adopted, or made under this chapter.” R.C. 3704.05(C), (G), (J)(2).
{¶ 21} Violations of R.C. 3704.05 may result in civil and criminal liability. R.C. 3704.06(C) provides that a “person who violates section 3704.05 * * * of the Revised Code shall pay a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars for each day of each violation.” Injunctive relief and criminal penalties are also available. R.C. 3704.06(B) and 3704.99.
III. Analysis
{¶ 22} At the outset, we note that Shelly does not dispute that when a facility emits pollutants in excess of its permitted limit while operating “at or near its maximum capacity,” it is out of compliance with its air-pollution-control permits and is liable for a civil penalty on the day of the failed stack test. Shelly has stipulated that its facilities emitted pollutants in excess of the respective permits’ emission limits during the stack-testing process. Thus, the issue raised in this appeal is not whether any of the Shelly facilities violated their Ohio EPA-issued permits. Rather, the issue is how long the violation continued in the interim period until Shelly demonstrated compliance with the permit terms. Specifically, the issue is whether that violation may be presumed to be continuing until Shelly rebuts the presumption with competent evidence that a facility is either (1) not violating its permit or (2) not violating its permit in a continuing manner. The answer to this question will also answer whether the civil penalty for the failed stack test is to be calculated according to the rationale applied by the trial court or to that applied by the appellate court.
{¶ 23} Although it is well established that the amount of a civil penalty imposed for a violation of pollution-control policies lies within the discretion of the trial court, e.g., State ex rel. Brown v. Dayton Malleable, 1 Ohio St.3d 151, 157-158, 438 N.E.2d 120 (1982), Shelly and the state acknowledge that the issues involved in this case are matters of law and fact. 191 Ohio App.3d 421, 2010-Ohio-6526, 946 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 5. Consequently, our focus is whether the appellate court properly determined that the trial court’s decision to limit emission violations and resulting penalties to the date of the nonconforming emission results was without some competent, credible evidence to support it. Id. at ¶ 55.
{¶ 24} The method prescribed by the permit for determining whether Shelly is operating within the pollution-emissions limitations of its permit is the stack test. Failing a stack test is a violation of the permit. Likewise, the stack test would normally be used also to determine when the facility has returned to compliance. When the facility passes a subsequent stack test, it has used the methodology [72]*72prescribed by the permit for establishing that the facility is in compliance with the permit’s pollution-emission limits. When the trial court determines, within its discretion, the amount of the penalty to be assessed for the facility’s permit violation, the court must consider all of the days on which the facility was out of compliance with its permit. Under the stack-test method that the permit specifies, this would logically include all of the days between the failed stack test and the subsequently passed stack test.
{¶ 25} Shelly, however, argues two points against considering all of the days between the failed stack test and the subsequently passed stack test as days that the law requires the court to include in its penalty assessment.
{¶ 26} First, Shelly argues that the court may not presume that the facility would exceed the permit’s limit on its pollution emissions unless the state first makes a prima facie showing that the violation is likely to be ongoing or continuing. Second, Shelly argues that even if the state makes a showing that the violation is likely to be ongoing, giving rise to a presumption that the violation continued for the entire time between the failed stack test and the subsequently passed stack test, Shelly still may rebut that presumption with evidence other than the stack test to show that the facility did not exceed its emissions limits on certain days.5
a. What constitutes a “showing”?
{¶ 27} Shelly first asserts that the state failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any particular Shelly facility was likely to, or actually did, emit pollutants in excess of its allowable permit limitation for each and every day of the alleged continuing violation period, including on those days when the facility was operating under normal conditions rather than at maximum capacity.
{¶ 28} The foundation for Shelly’s argument is R.C. 3704.06(B), which states that the attorney general has the authority to institute proceedings for violations of R.C. 3704.05 “upon the showing that the person has violated this chapter or rules adopted thereunder.” (Emphasis added.) Shelly contends that the phrase “upon the showing” is a standard legal term, which means the act of establishing through evidence or proof. Shelly further states that because this is civil [73]*73litigation, the traditional burdens of proof apply and require the state to carry its evidentiary burden by a preponderance of evidence. Shelly also cites decisional law that it claims supports its argument. United States v. Hoge Lumber Co., N.D.Ohio No. 3:95 CV 7044, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22359 (May 7, 1997); State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Thermal-Tron, Inc., 71 Ohio App.3d 11, 592 N.E.2d 912 (1992).
{¶ 29} R.C. 3704.06(B) is silent as to what evidentiary requirements are necessary to constitute a “showing” for purposes of the provision. However, Ohio’s air-pollution-control statutes, regulations, and policies incorporate the standards contained in the federal act, which bear upon this question.
{¶ 30} Since 1993, Ohio law has required that all the provisions that constitute the chapter of Ohio’s air-pollution-control statutes and “all the rules adopted under it, and all permits, variances, and orders issued under it shall be construed, to the extent reasonably possible, to be consistent with the federal Clean Air Act and to promote the purposes of the chapter.” R.C. 3704.02(B); 1993 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 153, effective Oct. 29, 1993. Also, since 2004, 42 U.S.C. 7413(e)(2) has been incorporated by reference into Ohio’s air-pollution-control regulations. Ohio Adm.Code 3745-31-01(AAAAAA)(2)(mmm).6 Section 7413(e)(2) states:
A penalty may be assessed for each day of violation. For purposes of determining the number of days of violation for which a penalty may be assessed * * * where * * * an air pollution control agency has notified the source of the violation, and the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the conduct or events giving rise to the violation are likely to have continued or recurred past the date of notice, the days of violation shall be presumed to include the date of such notice and each and every day thereafter until the violator establishes that continuous compliance has [74]*74been achieved, except to the extent that the violator can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there were intervening days during which no violation occurred or that the violation was not continuing in nature.
(Emphasis added.) Section 7413(e)(2).
{¶ 31} The legislative history of Section 7413(e) provides additional insight into the intent and rationale underlying the continuing-violation presumption. The Senate report accompanying the 1990 reenactment of Section 7413(e) noted that the section was rewritten to “identify explicitly a uniform set of factors that both the court and the Administrator shall consider in determining the appropriate amount of any penalty assessed under [the section].” S.Rep. No. 101-228, at 365 (1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3748 (1990). The report continued:
In addition, once the government * * * establishes a prima facie case showing a violation of an ongoing nature, the burden of proof would shift to the source to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has cured the violation or that the violation was not of a continuing nature and did not recur. Otherwise, and until the date the source establishes that it has come into compliance, the court should presume that the violation was continuous, and should assess penalties for each day of that violation. This shift in the burden of proof is appropriate because the source is in a better position than EPA to establish its compliance status. In this respect, the amendment overrules United States v. SCM Corp., 667 F.Supp. 1110 (D.Md.1987), in which the court refused to shift to the source the burden of proving compliance after EPA established that the source was in violation of the Act.
Id. at 336, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3749.
{¶ 32} In this case, the trial court’s approach to the continuing-violation presumption and civil-penalty calculation was similar to that in the discredited SCM Corp. decision. Accordingly, the appellate court properly rejected the trial court’s conclusions and applied the federally established, and state-incorporated, continuing-violation presumption. It correctly concluded that the trial court, to ensure that the state’s air-pollution-control laws were construed consistently with the federal act’s provisions as required by R.C. 3704.02, should have considered the permit violations as continuing until it was proved by the violator that a particular plant was no longer in violation of its permit.
[75]*75{¶ 33} Consequently, for the purposes of calculating the penalty for an air-pollution-control violation, the state must (1) establish that there was a violation of the permit requirements, (2) establish that the permit holder was notified of the violation, and (3) make a “prima facie showing that the conduct or events giving rise to the violation are likely to have continued or recurred past the date of notice.” Section 7413(e)(2); see Ohio AdmuCode 3745-31-01(AAAAAA)(2)(mmm). Establishing the foregoing gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the violation includes “the date of such notice and each and every day thereafter until the violator establishes that continuous compliance has been achieved” and that a penalty may be assessed for each day of violation. Id. The violator may rebut this presumption and avoid the imposition of a penalty by proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that there were intervening days during which no violation occurred or that the violation was not continuing in nature.” Id.
b. A Permit Violation and Notice of the Violation
{¶ 34} As to establishing a violation, it is undisputed, and Shelly has so stipulated, that when the facilities failed the stack-testing requirement of the permit, a mandatory and legally enforceable term of the permit was violated and that violation is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty. R.C. 3704.05(C) and 3704.06; Section 7413(e). It is also undisputed that Shelly was given notice of the permit violation.7 Section 7413(e).
c. The Prima Facie Showing
{¶ 35} We next consider the third element and whether the state made a prima facie showing “that the conduct or events giving rise to the violation are likely to have continued or recurred past the date of notice.” Section 7413(e)(2). In light of Shelly’s stipulations, a reasonable inference arises that if a Shelly facility failed the stack test on one day, and if no changes were made, it would fail the same test on a subsequent day. Id. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that without some change in the conditions or circumstances that produced the failed stack test, continuous compliance with the permit terms had been achieved.
{¶ 36} Therefore, when the state establishes that a permit holder failed to pass the stack test required by its permit, as is the case here, a prima facie showing is [76]*76made that the violation is likely to continue. The burden of proof then shifts to the permit holder to show that either continuous compliance has been achieved or that some change in conditions has occurred to cause the violation not to be a continuing one. Section 7413(e)(2). In this regard, Shelly’s reliance on the Hoge Lumber and ThermaL-Tron cases is inapposite. In Hoge Lumber, the court determined that the prima facie presumption that the violation was of a continuing nature applied because the defendant-polluter failed to provide any contrary rebuttal evidence, and Thermal-Tron predates the 1993 amendments to Ohio’s air-pollution-control statutes.8
d. Rebuttal Evidence
{¶ 37} Section 7413(e)(2) allows Shelly to rebut the presumption of a continuing violation, and the state conceded this point at oral argument. However, the parties disagree on what evidence may be used to properly rebut the continuing-violation presumption to mitigate the imposition of penalties. There is no apparent dispute between the parties that the penalties ceased when the Shelly facilities came back into compliance with their respective permits because they obtained modified permits or variances or conducted subsequent stack testing demonstrating that the facility was in compliance with permit requirements.
{¶ 38} The state contends, however, that Shelly could mitigate its penalties by also offering rebuttal evidence that shows that the permit violation was not of a continuing nature, with evidence such as days of nonoperation or subsequent modifications to a facility. To the extent that Ohio’s air-pollution-control policies incorporate the federal enforcement and penalty-calculation provisions, we agree that the additional considerations of whether there were intervening days during which the permit violation did not occur or that the violation was not continuing in nature are “not limited to * * * evidence that is based solely on the applicable test method in the State implementation or regulation” and may include “evidence from continuous emission monitoring systems, expert testimony, and bypassing and control equipment malfunctions, even if these are not the applicable test methods.” S.Rep. No. 101-228 at 366, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3749.
{¶ 39} Therefore, Shelly was not limited to presenting evidence that showed successful compliance with a subsequent stack test to mitigate its penalty for the permit violation. Rather, Shelly could have offered evidence that showed that the permit violation was not of a continuing nature, such as evidence that the operating conditions documented during the stack testing no longer existed, that [77]*77mechanical failures were repaired, that raw materials and fuels were changed, or that Shelly scheduled retests.
{¶ 40} Shelly declined to present evidence of this character into the record.9 Instead, Shelly presented what it calls a “normal operations defense.” According to Shelly, because the operation of the Shelly facilities at maximum-capacity for the stack test was only a snapshot of a plant’s emissions over the course of a one-hour period using worst-case fuels and materials, the stack test did not reflect the normal, daily operating conditions of Shelly’s facilities and, under such normal operating conditions, the normal release of emissions. Shelly asserts that because it does not normally operate any of its facilities under the conditions required for the stack testing, the failed stack test cannot be used by the state to demonstrate that the Shelly facilities were systemically out of compliance with their respective permits — only that there was noncompliance on the day of the test.
{¶ 41} Shelly’s normal-operations argument does have intuitive appeal: that the operation of a facility at less than maximum capacity will result in the emission of fewer pollutants. Nevertheless, Shelly’s normal-operations argument does not provide any actual evidence that the emissions released while operating normally are within the permit’s emission limit. The burden is on the violator to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there were intervening days on which no violation occurred or that the violation was not continuing in nature. Consequently, Shelly’s normal-operations argument, without more, does not show how the permit violation was not of a continuing nature.
{¶ 42} Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that Shelly presented sufficient evidence to rebut the application of a continuing-violation presumption.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 43} We hold that the Shelly facilities were out of compliance with their air-pollution-control permits, and thus subject to civil penalty, from the date on which stack testing showed emissions in excess of the limits specified in the permit until the permit holder demonstrated compliance with permit terms. Accordingly, we conclude that the appellate court’s judgment remanding this matter to the trial court for a recalculation of the civil penalty, within the trial court’s sound discretion, was appropriate.
{¶ 44} Nonetheless, on the state’s invitation, we remand this matter to the trial court for reopening of the record to allow Shelly the opportunity to identify [78]*78evidence that demonstrates that the permit violation was not a continuing violation. At that time, Shelly may identify the rebuttal evidence that addresses the actions taken by its facilities from the time when the facilities initially failed to comply with that requirement and until the facilities came back into compliance, either through a subsequent compliance-demonstrating stack test or revised permits or variances, and Shelly may demonstrate that the violation of the stack-test requirement was not of a continuing nature.
{¶ 45} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.
O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.