Comment Submitted by Anonymous
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: A former environmental officer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it removes critical protections against health hazards like toxic contamination and flood risks. The commenter asserts that the action is being taken in bad faith and will result in significant negative impacts on public health.
This is being done, because HUD has destroyed the Office of Environment and Energy as well as HUD's environmental capacity. As a former environmental officer who was bullied out of the office, I do not believe good cause exists for this interim rule. This is good cause claim is being made in bad faith and will result in significant health impacts. These environmental officer reviews often found issues with toxic site contamination, flood hazards, noise, and adjacent explosive facilities. This rule eliminates that protection with little thought to dangers and costs to public health. This rule is against the public interest.