Anonymous public comment

I am writing to oppose EPA's proposed rescission of the regulatory determinations and Maximum Contaminant Levels for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the associated Hazard Index mixture. In my view, EPA has not adequately explained why full rescission, rather than a narrower cure, is the appropriate remedy for the alleged procedural defect, particularly as EPA does not dispute that these chemicals may warrant equal or stricter regulation. The rescission is additionally in tension with the Safe Drinking Water Act's anti-backsliding requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(9), which provides that any revision of a national primary drinking water regulation “shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.” EPA's theory that the 2024 rule was never lawfully in effect is contested. Finalizing a rescission built on an unresolved legal theory is premature. Presently, my state of Montana has no independent state Maximum Contaminant Level for these PFAS to fall back on. Montana’s rural communities have particularly limited resources to independently monitor or treat drinking water. Without an enforceable federal standard, communities like mine would have no enforceable benchmark at any level of government for an indefinite period of time. Notably, measurable concentrations of PFNA were recently detected in fish tissue composite samples (alongside PFOS) at the Fort Peck Reservoir, which has been designated as the source water for a proposed government water project in eastern Montana. In consideration of these legal and practical concerns, I urge EPA to withdraw or substantially narrow this proposal. Further, if EPA proceeds despite this opposition, it should at minimum adopt the following measures – none of which is a substitute for withdrawal, but are necessary to prevent an indefinite lapse in protection from harmful contaminants: 1.Extend EPA's "PFAS OUT" initiative to include PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the associated Hazard Index mixture, to support utilities working to reduce PFAS in drinking water. 2.Issue EPA health advisories for PFHxS and PFNA, and reaffirm that the existing 2022 health advisories for HFPO-DA and PFBS remain in effect, to give states, utilities, and families a health-based benchmark during the interim period. 3.Continue monitoring and public reporting for the four PFAS in the next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule cycle (UCMR 6), to ensure that occurrence data is consistently collected and publicly reported. 4.Designate the four PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA § 102(a), consistent with existing PFOA/PFOS designations, to provide federal response authority and cost-recovery tools at contaminated sites. 5.Commit to a start date and timeline for reinitiating the sequential SDWA process, to maintain public faith in EPA’s commitment to providing critical health protections. A legally contested rescission, without interim safeguards or meaningful commitment to replacement protections, is neither practical nor scientifically sound. In support of EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment, I urge EPA to withdraw or substantially narrow this proposal, and adopt measures that strengthen protection for the public EPA serves.