The short version: EPA finalized enforceable drinking-water limits for six PFAS compounds in April 2024. In May 2026, EPA proposed two changes — a two-year extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS, and a rescission of the limits on the other four. Neither proposal is final. Until a final rule says otherwise, the original 2024 deadlines are what water systems are legally held to.
The short answer
What's regulated today: PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) each; PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA (GenX) individually; and a Hazard Index limit for mixtures of those plus PFBS.
What changed May 18, 2026: EPA proposed extending the PFOA/PFOS compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031, and separately proposed rescinding the limits on PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and the Hazard Index.
What hasn't changed: the 4.0 ppt PFOA/PFOS limits themselves, and New Jersey's own state limits, which predate the federal rule entirely.
What's actually regulated, and since when
Per EPA's own PFAS drinking water regulation page, the final rule finalized in April 2024 established enforceable limits — Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs — for six PFAS compounds: individual limits for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), plus a Hazard Index MCL that applies to mixtures containing two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS. PFOA and PFOS share the same number: 4.0 parts per trillion (also expressed as 4.0 nanograms per liter) each, the tightest of the six.
The rule set a phased compliance timeline for public water systems, not private wells — private wells are never covered by EPA's enforceable rules regardless of PFAS status. By 2027, systems must complete initial monitoring and begin public notification of results. By 2029, any system exceeding an MCL must have installed treatment to bring levels into compliance, or provide formal violation notices if it hasn't.
What EPA proposed in May 2026
On May 18, 2026, EPA announced two separate proposed rules as part of what it calls its Comprehensive PFAS Strategy, per the same EPA regulation page:
- A compliance deadline extension. The first proposal would extend the compliance deadline for the PFOA and PFOS MCLs specifically, from April 2029 to April 2031, through a federal exemption framework that eligible water systems could apply to use. The 4.0 ppt limits themselves are not proposed to change — only how long systems get to meet them.
- A rescission of four other PFAS. The second proposal would rescind the regulatory determinations and MCLs for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and the Hazard Index mixtures rule covering those three plus PFBS, on the grounds — per EPA's own stated reasoning — that the prior rulemaking didn't follow the sequential process the Safe Drinking Water Act requires.
Both are proposals, not final rules. EPA's page states plainly that "until the rule is final, April 2029 remains the enforceable deadline" for PFOA and PFOS. A public comment period followed the announcement, including a virtual public hearing and a written-comment deadline in July 2026 — the kind of process that has to run its course before either proposal could take effect. If you're reading this well after mid-2026, check EPA's PFAS page directly for whether either proposal has since been finalized, withdrawn, or changed further; a proposal in progress is, by definition, not a stable fact to build a long-term decision on.
New Jersey's numbers were never waiting on Washington
New Jersey regulated PFAS in drinking water years before the federal government did anything at all. Per the state's own FAQ on PFAS in drinking water, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection adopted a state MCL for PFNA in 2018 — the first drinking-water MCL for any PFAS compound issued anywhere in the country — followed by PFOA and PFOS in 2020. The state's numbers: 0.014 mg/L (14 ppt) for PFOA, and 0.013 mg/L (13 ppt) for both PFOS and PFNA.
Put next to the federal number, the comparison runs in an unexpected direction: the 2024 federal MCL of 4.0 ppt for PFOA and PFOS is actually tighter than New Jersey's existing 14 ppt and 13 ppt state standards. New Jersey got there first, but the federal rule, where it applies, sets a stricter bar once systems are in full compliance. New Jersey residents on a public water system are protected by whichever number is stricter at any given time — that's how the Safe Drinking Water Act's state-primacy framework generally works, since states can set MCLs at least as strict as the federal floor.
New Jersey also folded PFAS into its Private Well Testing Act specifically, which the federal MCLs never touch, since PWTA governs private wells and EPA's PFAS rule governs public water systems only. Per the same state FAQ, "all wells that are sampled as part of a real estate transaction must be analyzed for PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA as well as GenX chemicals, PFBS, and PFHxS." Our well water testing guide for NJ, NY and CT covers the full PWTA panel and the two neighboring states' recommended schedules.
What this means for home water treatment
New Jersey's own PFAS FAQ is specific and worth quoting directly, because it draws a distinction homeowners often miss: "NSF International... develops standards to certify products proven effective for reducing PFOA and PFOS to below 20 ppt, but these products are not certified for removal to the lower New Jersey MCLs of 14 and 13 ppt, respectively." In plain terms, an NSF-certified treatment device is tested and certified against a 20 ppt benchmark — a real, independently verified standard — but that benchmark sits above both New Jersey's state MCL and the federal MCL. A certified device and a guarantee that your water meets the state or federal number are not automatically the same claim, and we're not going to blur that line for you.
With that distinction in mind: of our current catalog, the Brondell Coral UC300 under-sink filter, $179.99, is the one product whose own page states a PFOA/PFOS reduction claim tied to a specific NSF/ANSI standard — it's "WQA Gold Seal Certified" to NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 401, and its page lists PFOA/PFOS among the 75-plus contaminants it's certified to reduce. If a product's page doesn't make that specific claim, we're not going to represent it here as something it isn't certified for. Browse our full under-sink RO systems collection for other certified options.
Get your specific water checked
PFAS exposure is local and source-specific — whether you're on a public system or a private well changes everything about which rule, if any, applies to you. Send us your ZIP code and source through our Free Water Match and we'll help you figure out what's actually relevant to your address.
Questions people actually ask
Is my tap water unsafe right now because of PFAS?
We can't answer that for your specific address — it depends entirely on your water source and its actual test results. Public water systems are required to test and report; private well owners are responsible for testing their own water.
If EPA rescinds the rule for PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA, does that mean those chemicals are no longer a concern?
The rescission proposal is about the legal process EPA used to set those specific MCLs, per EPA's own stated rationale — it is not a finding that the chemicals themselves changed. And in New Jersey specifically, PFNA already carries its own state MCL (13 ppt) that doesn't depend on the federal rule at all.
Does the 2026 proposal change the 4.0 ppt limit for PFOA and PFOS?
No. The proposed change is to the compliance deadline — how long systems have to meet the limit — not to the 4.0 ppt number itself, per EPA's own description of the May 2026 proposal.
My water utility already sent me a PFAS notice. What do I do with it?
Read the specific compound and concentration named, and compare it against both the federal MCL and, if you're in New Jersey, the state MCL — they're not always the same number, and the notice should reference which standard it's measuring against. If you'd rather not work through that alone, send it to us through the form above.
Do I need reverse osmosis specifically, or will any filter do?
That depends on your results and what's certified for what. Reverse osmosis is the technology proven for dissolved contaminants at the membrane level; this article covers which specific product page actually states a PFOA/PFOS certification today. For how whole-house and under-sink RO systems differ more generally, see our whole-house vs. under-sink RO comparison.
Federal regulatory facts and the 2026 proposal status are drawn directly from EPA's PFAS drinking water regulation page, current as of publication; check that page for any final action taken after this article's publication date. New Jersey figures are drawn from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Health's own published FAQ. Certification claims name the NSF/ANSI standard and are stated only where a product's own page carries that claim. This article is regulatory information, not a water quality test of your home and not medical advice.