What the Proposed PFAS Changes Do and Don't Do

Regulatory

In May 2026 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed changes to the federal PFAS drinking-water rule, and the headlines that followed made it sound like one sweeping move. It is not. There are two separate proposals, they do two different things, and neither is final. Here is a plain reading of what is on the table, what would stay the same, and how anyone can weigh in before the comment window closes. We have kept the politics out of it on purpose. The goal is to explain the mechanics, not to argue the merits.

Two proposals, not one

Both proposals were signed by the EPA Administrator on May 18, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2026. They share a comment deadline, but they are distinct rules with distinct purposes and their own dockets.

The first proposal would rescind four limits. It proposes to withdraw the drinking-water limits the 2024 rule set for three PFAS compounds and one mixture: PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid), HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index that governs mixtures of those three plus a fourth compound, PFBS. EPA states this rescission is proposed on legal and procedural grounds. In its own words, the action is "necessary to correct the unlawful procedure under which these regulations were promulgated," because the agency believes it is "not authorized" to have set the regulatory determinations and the limits "simultaneously and in tandem." EPA is explicit that it is not reopening the underlying health science and "is not seeking comment on its substantive findings ... including any information about health risks associated with PFAS."

The second proposal would extend a compliance deadline. It proposes to move the date by which public water systems must comply with the PFOA and PFOS limits from April 26, 2029 to April 26, 2031, a two-year extension. This works through an exemption mechanism under the Safe Drinking Water Act, available "for those systems that submit a request," rather than as an automatic extension across the board. EPA's stated reason is straightforward: "Many water systems simply need more time to comply with drinking water limits on PFOA and PFOS," given the realities of testing, financing, construction, specialized filtration media, and trained operators.

What does not change

The two most important facts for households and operators are what these proposals leave alone.

The PFOA and PFOS limits stay at 4.0 parts per trillion. The first proposal does not touch them, and the second explicitly says its mechanism "does not change the PFOA and PFOS MCLs established in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR which remain 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) each." The non-enforceable health goal for both remains zero. The extension changes the calendar, not the number.

Nothing changes for water systems or consumers until the EPA takes final action. These are proposed rules open for public comment, not final ones. The 2024 rule remains in effect as written, and current monitoring and reporting timelines still apply. EPA has said it intends to take final action in 2026. Until it does, the requirements on the books today are the requirements that stand. It is also worth noting, for context, that the 2024 rule has been challenged in court, and EPA has said it is defending it; the proposals now on the table are a separate track from that litigation.

What it means in practice

To read the proposals clearly, it helps to remember how the 2024 rule was built. That rule, made final in April 2024, addressed six PFAS in two ways. Five of them carry individual enforceable limits: PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 ppt each, and PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX at 10 ppt each. The sixth, PFBS, has no individual limit of its own; it is regulated only as part of a mixture, through a "Hazard Index" that applies when two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and PFBS appear together.

Set the two proposals against that structure and the shape of the change is clear. PFOA and PFOS, and their 4.0 ppt limits, would be left intact. The individual limits for PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX, along with the Hazard Index that also pulls in PFBS, are the ones proposed for withdrawal.

For a public water system, the practical takeaway is continuity. Monitoring and reporting go on under the current timelines; the proposals do not pause them. For a household, nothing about your water or your options changes today because of these proposals. If they are finalized as written, the effect for most people would be a longer runway for systems to meet the PFOA and PFOS limits, and the removal of the separate limits for the other compounds, pending EPA's further review.

The point-of-use angle EPA itself raises

The extension proposal is notable for how much attention it gives to certified point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) filtration. Among the control measures a system may use during the exemption period, EPA lists "installing and maintaining POU or POE devices certified to decrease PFOA and PFOS concentrations." Certified filtration is written into the framework as a recognized, interim tool.

Here it is worth being precise, because the certification detail matters and is easy to oversell. As EPA's own document describes it, POU and POE devices certified to the NSF/ANSI 53 and 58 standards today are certified to reduce PFOA and PFOS to roughly 20 or 70 parts per trillion, depending on the standard version. Those levels are above the 4.0 ppt limit. EPA states plainly that the current "NSF/ANSI standard for PFOA and PFOS removal in point-of-use and point-of-entry (POU and POE) devices did not meet the ... MCLs," and that the standards committee is "continuing the process to update their standards to align" with the 4.0 ppt limit. The honest way to say it: a device certified today reduces PFAS substantially and is recognized as a compliance and interim measure, and the certification bar is on a path toward the 4.0 ppt limit. It does not mean a device certified today is already certified to 4.0 ppt. Anyone comparing filtration should read the certified listing for the specific compounds and levels claimed, rather than the shorthand on the box.

How to weigh in

Both proposals are open for written public comment through July 20, 2026. Comments are submitted on regulations.gov, and because these are two separate rules, a comment has to go to the correct docket for the point it addresses:

Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 covers the proposal to rescind the four limits (PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and the Hazard Index mixture). EPA has framed this rule as legal and procedural, so its request for comment is narrow.
Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 covers the proposed compliance-deadline extension for PFOA and PFOS. This is the docket where the point-of-use, point-of-entry, and treatment-technology discussion lives, and where comment on certified filtration as a control measure belongs.

To comment, go to regulations.gov, search the docket ID, open the proposed rule, and follow the instructions to submit. Every submission must include the docket ID. Comments are posted publicly and, once submitted, cannot be edited or removed, so it is worth filing well before the end of the day on July 20.

Where Aquamor stands

Our interest here is narrow and consistent: clear standards and honest certification claims move the whole industry forward. When the rules and the certifications underneath them are precise, the people who make filtration and the people who buy it can both act with confidence, and "reduces PFAS" stops being a marketing phrase and starts being a testable, listed fact. Aquamor® builds NSF-certified filtration, and we follow this rulemaking closely for the same reason we would tell you to read a certified listing rather than a label: the specifics are the whole point.

Sources

Links lead to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the federal rulemaking portal. These are proposed rules; always confirm the current, binding requirement with the relevant agency at the time of a decision.

Back to Insights

Ask the Team

For multi-site operators

Running foodservice equipment? See how Aquamor keeps it from going down.

See the Foodservice Solution Size Your System