Anonymous public comment

I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2024 drinking water standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture, and the proposed two-year extension of PFOA/PFOS compliance deadlines. If the 2024 rule had a procedural defect under the SDWA, the fix is to correct that process, not eliminate the underlying protections. Rescinding the standards outright creates more uncertainty than it resolves, since utilities lose a stable compliance target and both industry and public health groups are likely to sue regardless of outcome. This administration has made reducing Americans' exposure to toxic chemicals in food and water a stated priority under the Make America Healthy Again initiative. Forever chemicals are a textbook example of the chronic, low-level exposure MAHA has called attention to, linked to cancer, liver damage, and developmental harm in children. Rolling back enforceable limits on these chemicals, even temporarily, sends a mixed signal about that commitment and risks handing a win to the same chemical industry influence MAHA has pledged to push back against. There's also a fiscal case here. Utilities have already begun capital planning around the original 2029 deadline. Delaying or reversing course now risks wasted investment and repeated rulemaking, a poor use of ratepayer and taxpayer money. Communities near military bases, where PFAS contamination from firefighting foam is common, and private well owners have the least ability to absorb further delay. I urge EPA to pursue a corrected rulemaking that keeps enforceable limits on all six PFAS in place while fixing the procedural concerns, rather than a rescission that trades one legal risk for another. Thank you for considering this comment.