[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29425-29448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10086]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742; FRL 8543.1-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG49
Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum
Contaminant Levels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; request for public comment; notice of
public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this proposed rulemaking, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes a federal exemption, pursuant to Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) 1416(f) and 1450(a)(1), that will extend the dates of
compliance with the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
from April 26, 2029, to April 26, 2031, for those systems that submit a
request. The Agency requests comment on this proposal, including the
mechanisms through which the MCL compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS
can be exempted, and has identified specific areas where public input
will be helpful for the EPA in developing the final rule. In addition
to seeking written input, the EPA will be holding a public hearing on
July 7, 2026.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2026. Comments
on the information collection provisions of the proposed rule under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OMB-OIRA) on or before June 22, 2026. Please refer to the PRA section
under ``Statutory and Executive Order Reviews'' in this preamble for
specific instructions.
Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on July
7, 2026. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information on the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2025-1742, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2025-1742 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Information related to the virtual hearing can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule. The
hearing will convene at 11:00 a.m. eastern time and will conclude at
7:00 p.m. eastern time, or at the conclusion of public testimony,
whichever is sooner. Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Lan, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (Mail Code
4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0841; email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 29426]]
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What is the EPA proposing?
B. Does this action apply to me?
II. Background
A. PFAS
B. PFAS Regulatory History
C. What are the 2024 PFAS NPDWR requirements related to PFOA and
PFOS?
D. Why is the EPA proposing to provide more time for systems to
achieve the MCL compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS?
E. Why is the EPA not proposing to provide more time for systems
to achieve the MCL compliance deadlines for other contaminants
covered by the 2024 PFAS NPDWR?
III. National Exemptions Framework
A. Exempting Public Water Systems From the PFOA and PFOS MCL
Compliance Dates Under SDWA 1416
B. Statutory Authority
C. SDWA 1416 Evaluation and Proposed Findings
1. Water System Exemption Eligibility
2. Proposal To Grant Water System Exemptions
D. National Exemptions Framework Implementation and Primacy
Considerations
1. PFOA and PFOS Federal Exemptions Process and Requirements
a. Exemptions Process and Timing
b. PFOA and PFOS Exemption Requirements
i. PFOA and PFOS Reduction Control Measures
ii. Public Notification Requirements
iii. Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
2. Primacy Considerations
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Baseline
B. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule
V. Public Participation
A. Request for Comment on the Proposed Rule
B. Written Comments
C. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Consultations With the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC)
VII. References
I. General Information
A. What is the EPA proposing?
The EPA proposes a federal exemption pursuant to SDWA 1416,
including 1416(f) and 1450(a)(1), that would extend the compliance
deadlines for the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS from April 26, 2029, to April
26, 2031, for systems that apply (see section III of this preamble for
additional details). The Agency welcomes public comment to inform how
the EPA proceeds with finalizing the proposal.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this action include those that are
subject to the 2024 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), namely public water systems
(PWSs) and those state and Tribal agencies responsible for drinking
water regulatory development and enforcement. These PWSs include
community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs). 89 FR 32532, April 26, 2024. A PWS, as defined in 40
CFR 141.2, provides water to the public ``for human consumption through
pipes or . . . other constructed conveyances, if such system has at
least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at
least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.''
See also SDWA 1401(4)(A). A PWS is either a CWS or a non-community
water system (NCWS). A CWS, as defined in 40 CFR 141.2, is ``a public
water system which serves at least 15 service connections used by year-
round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.''
A NTNCWS is a type of NCWS, and the definition in 40 CFR 141.2 for a
NTNCWS is ``a public water system that is not a [CWS] and that
regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per
year.'' The following table provides examples of the regulated entities
under this rulemaking:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs......................................... CWSs; NTNCWSs.
State and Tribal agencies.................... Agencies responsible for
drinking water
regulatory development
and enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA
is now aware could potentially be regulated by this rulemaking. To
determine whether your entity is regulated by this rulemaking, this
notice of proposed rulemaking should be carefully examined. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this rulemaking to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
A. PFAS
PFAS are a large class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that
have been in use in the United States and around the world since the
1940s (USEPA, 2024a). The unique properties of PFAS, including thermal-
and chemical-stability and the ability to repel water and stains, are
pertinent to a variety of commercial, industrial, and consumer products
(USEPA, 2024a). PFAS generally break down slowly due to their strong
carbon-fluorine bonds, which contribute to their environmental
persistence (USEPA, 2024b). Exposure to certain PFAS, including PFOA
and PFOS, can lead to accumulation in tissues, including the liver and
kidneys, and blood (ATSDR, 2021; Domingo and Nadal, 2019; Fromme et
al., 2009; USEPA, 2024c; USEPA, 2024d). Humans can be exposed to PFAS,
including PFOA and PFOS, via ingestion of contaminated food and
drinking water, inhalation, and dermal contact. A wide range of
consumer products contain PFOA and PFOS, and exposures can occur
outdoors and indoors, including occupational settings, among other
routes (ITRC, 2023; USEPA, 2024a). Some population groups may be more
sensitive to the harmful health effects of certain PFAS include
pregnant and lactating woman, children, and infants. Studies indicate
that PFOA and PFOS exposure above
[[Page 29427]]
certain levels may result in adverse health effects, including
developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breast- or
formula-fed infants, cancers, immunological effects, cardiovascular
effects, and liver damage, among others (USEPA, 2024c, USEPA, 2024d,
ATSDR, 2021; USEPA, 2021a; USEPA, 2021b).
This proposal applies to two specific PFAS: PFOA and PFOS. The
manufacturing and use of these compounds have largely been voluntarily
phased out in the United States; however, small quantities of PFOA may
still be produced, imported, and used by some companies, and limited
uses of PFOS are ongoing (ITRC, 2023). Due to their use, persistence
and physicochemical properties, these compounds are known to be present
across different environmental media and existing evidence demonstrates
multiple pathways for human exposure (NCSL, 2025; USEPA, 2024a; USEPA,
2024b). Additionally, other PFAS precursors degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS
in the environment, further contributing to their persistence and
exposure risk (Buck et al., 2011; Conder et al., 2008; Liu and Mejia
Avenda[ntilde]o, 2013).
B. PFAS Regulatory History
SDWA 1412(b)(1)(B)(i) requires the EPA to publish a Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) every five years. The CCL is a list of
contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in PWSs, are not
currently subject to any proposed or promulgated NPDWRs, and that may
require future regulation under SDWA. By listing contaminants on the
CCL, the EPA may obtain data to better understand their potential
occurrence and health impacts, although this listing does not itself
impose requirements on PWSs. The EPA listed PFOS and PFOA on the 2009
and 2016 CCLs to identify these contaminants as a priority for
regulatory decision making (USEPA, 2009; USEPA, 2016).
The EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to
collect data for contaminants that are anticipated to be present in
drinking water and do not have regulations under SDWA. Under the UCMR,
PWSs are required to monitor for priority unregulated contaminants
every five years, and the Agency makes the results publicly available.
As part of the third and fifth UCMR (UCMR 3 and UCMR 5, respectively),
water systems collected monitoring data for PFAS, including PFOA and
PFOS (USEPA, 2012; USEPA, 2021c).
On February 20, 2020, the EPA made preliminary determinations to
regulate PFOA and PFOS. The EPA then made final positive regulatory
determinations to regulate PFOA and PFOS in March 2021 (USEPA, 2021d).
On March 29, 2023, the EPA proposed an NPDWR for PFOA and PFOS (USEPA,
2023a). On April 26, 2024, the EPA finalized an NPDWR for PFOA and PFOS
(USEPA, 2024b).
C. What are the 2024 PFAS NPDWR requirements related to PFOA and PFOS?
The 2024 PFAS NPDWR established Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs) for PFOA and PFOS at zero (0) and MCLs at 4.0 nanograms per
liter or parts per trillion (ng/L or ppt) for both compounds (40 CFR
141.50(a)(24) and (25); 40 CFR 141.61(c)(2)(vi) and (c)(2)(vii)). The
2024 PFAS NPDWR listed feasible treatment technologies for PWSs that
can be used to comply with those MCLs (40 CFR 141.61(d) and (e)).
The EPA also finalized public ``Right-to-Know'' provisions in the
2024 PFAS NPDWR, which include public notification (PN) and Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) requirements (see 40 CFR part 141 subparts O
and Q). CWSs are required to prepare and deliver to its customers an
annual CCR that reports detectable levels of PFOA and PFOS and provides
health effects language in the case of MCL violations (40 CFR
141.151(a) and (d)). Additionally, MCL violations require Tier 2 PN, or
notification provided as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days
after a system learns of an MCL violation (40 CFR 141.203).
Additionally, violations related to monitoring and testing procedures
(e.g., a system failing to monitor) require Tier 3 PN, or notice no
later than one year after a system learns of the violation (40 CFR
141.204).
To demonstrate compliance with the MCLs, the EPA also finalized
monitoring and reporting requirements for PWSs (40 CFR 141.902 and
141.904). PWSs are required to sample each entry point using a
monitoring regime based on the EPA's Standard Monitoring Framework for
Synthetic Organic Contaminants (SOCs). As part of these requirements,
PWSs must complete their initial monitoring, which may include the use
of recent, previously acquired monitoring to satisfy some or all of the
initial monitoring requirements by April 26, 2027 (40 CFR
141.900(b)(2); 40 CFR 141.902(b)(1)(xi)). To demonstrate that finished
drinking water does not exceed the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS, PWSs are
required under the 2024 PFAS NPDWR to conduct compliance monitoring for
PFOA and PFOS at a frequency based on these sample results. PWSs are
required to report to primacy agencies the results of all initial and
compliance monitoring results to ensure compliance with the 2024 PFAS
NPDWR.
Under the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, the EPA exercised its authority under
SDWA 1412(b)(10) to allow a two-year nationwide capital improvement
extension to comply with the MCLs. All systems are required to comply
with the MCLs by April 26, 2029 (40 CFR 141.900(b)(4); 40 CFR 141.903).
D. Why is the EPA proposing to provide more time for systems to achieve
the MCL compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS?
The EPA is proposing to exempt eligible systems from the 2024 NPDWR
PFOA and PFOS MCL compliance deadlines, and instead extend these
deadlines to provide greater regulatory flexibility and support for
addressing these PFAS in drinking water, all while prioritizing both
short-term and long-term public health protection. In evaluating the
need for these extensions, the Agency considered compounding
implementation challenges facing PWSs, including in small, rural, and
disadvantaged communities, and other factors that may ease the
implementation burden for many systems, and the communities they serve,
if they had more time to comply. These include: the time it takes to
implement capital improvement projects; certified operator availability
to build and operate treatment systems; financial limitations,
including the time it takes to determine and secure funding to
construct capital improvements; availability of monitoring data to
inform capital improvement decisions; broader strategies to address
PFAS, such as source water protection, PFAS treatment technology
improvements and innovation; and the ability for the EPA to provide a
broader number of systems with technical assistance to support rule
compliance.
E. Why is the EPA not proposing to provide more time for systems to
achieve the MCL compliance deadlines for other contaminants covered by
the 2024 PFAS NPDWR?
In a separate action, the EPA is proposing to rescind the MCLs and
associated provisions for perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS),
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
(HFPO-DA) and the Hazard Index that includes these PFAS and
perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). Accordingly, this proposal only
applies to two specific PFAS: PFOA and PFOS.
[[Page 29428]]
III. National Exemptions Framework
A. Exempting Public Water Systems From the PFOA and PFOS MCL Compliance
Dates Under SDWA 1416
Since promulgation of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, the EPA has become aware
that many systems may be unable to comply with the MCLs by the current
2029 compliance date and may seek the EPA's approval of an exemption
pursuant to SDWA 1416(f) before states have obtained primacy.
Considering that similar circumstances are currently impacting the
majority of systems seeking to achieve MCL compliance, to streamline
the exemptions process and manage the potentially large number of
exemption requests, the EPA proposes a national rule to govern the
process for systems to request and obtain a two-year federal exemption
from compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs in states, territories, and
Tribes that have not obtained primacy for those MCLs. An exemption
under SDWA 1416 is an appropriate mechanism to provide this additional
time to systems that meet the statutory criteria for an exemption.
Exemptions can help ensure that systems which are unable to comply with
the PFOA and PFOS MCLs by the compliance date will have the opportunity
to obtain the technical and financial resources necessary to take the
steps needed to comply with the rule ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' but not later than three years after the otherwise
applicable compliance date (SDWA 1416(b)(2)(A)). Although the statute
allows up to three years, this proposed federal exemption will provide
an appropriate federally-implemented bridge for systems to come into
compliance as ``expeditiously as practicable'' while states adopt and
begin implementation of the rule. See section III.C of this preamble
for more on the EPA's findings. Once states have obtained primacy, they
can determine whether to provide additional exemptions, consistent with
SDWA 1416(a) and (b), if individual water systems are still unable to
comply by the federally extended compliance date.
B. Statutory Authority
SDWA 1416(a) and (b) authorizes states with primary enforcement
authority to exempt any system that meets specified criteria in SDWA
1416(a) from any requirement respecting any MCL or treatment technique
(TT) requirement of an applicable NPDWR. If a state grants an
exemption, it must prescribe a schedule for compliance not to exceed
three years and may include a schedule for the implementation of
control measures, after providing notice and an opportunity for a
public hearing on the schedule. SDWA 1416(f) provides that if a state
does not have primacy, the Administrator has the same authority to
exempt a PWS from any MCL or TT requirement of an applicable NPDWR
``under the same conditions and in the same manner'' as a state would
be authorized to grant exemptions if it had primacy. Additionally, SDWA
1450(a)(1) provides that the Administrator is authorized to prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out their
functions under this title.
While section 1416 has typically been used to authorize exemptions
by primacy agencies on a case-by-case basis, nothing in the statute
expressly forecloses a more streamlined exemption-by-rule approach,
just as permitting requirements under other programs often provide for
both individual permits and permits-by-rule. Because it is possible
that there will be a large number of requests for additional time for
compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs before states obtain primacy, a
national rule to streamline the statutory process for providing
additional time is appropriate.
The EPA recognizes that the exemption process under SDWA section
1416 requires a number of findings before authorizing additional time
for compliance, some of which are amenable to a categorical approach
and some of which are not. As a result, the EPA has designed this
proposed exemption-by-rule process to provide categorical findings (see
section III.C of this preamble), where possible, but also to require
water systems to individually request the exemption by providing
system-specific information to the EPA in order for the exemption to
apply on a case-by-case basis. This combination of categorical findings
and system-specific application both meets the statutory requirements
for exemption eligibility under SDWA section 1416 and streamlines the
process for issuing exemptions to the extent possible. The EPA is
seeking public comment on this proposed national framework and the
Agency's use of authority under SDWA 1416 in this streamlined fashion.
C. SDWA 1416 Evaluation and Proposed Findings
In accordance with the EPA's authority to grant exemptions under
SDWA 1416(f) and to prescribe such regulations as are necessary or
appropriate to carry out this authority as provided under SDWA
1450(a)(1), in this rulemaking the EPA proposes an ``exemption by
rule'' for systems in states that have not obtained primacy for 40 CFR
part 141 subpart Z under which eligible systems may individually
request, submit system-specific information, and obtain a two-year
federal exemption from the requirements related to these MCLs until
April 26, 2031. As described in section III.B of this preamble, SDWA
1416(f) provides that the Administrator has the same authority to
exempt a PWS from any MCL or TT requirement of an applicable NPDWR
``under the same conditions and in the same manner'' described in SDWA
1416(a) and (b) as a state would be authorized to grant exemptions if
it had primacy.
1. Water System Exemption Eligibility
As required under SDWA 1416(a), a water system may be exempt from
the requirements of an MCL upon a finding that: (1) Due to compelling
factors (which may include economic factors, including qualification of
the PWS as a system serving a disadvantaged community pursuant to SDWA
1452(d)), the PWS is unable to comply with such contaminant level or TT
requirement, or to implement measures to develop an alternative source
of water supply; (2) The PWS was in operation on the effective date of
such contaminant level or TT requirement, or, for a system that was not
in operation by that date, only if no reasonable alternative source of
drinking water is available to such new system; (3) The granting of the
exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk to health (URTH); and
(4) Management or restructuring changes (or both) cannot reasonably be
made that will result in compliance with this title or, if compliance
cannot be achieved, improve the quality of the drinking water. For
water systems subject to the rule requirements, the EPA evaluated these
criteria and proposes to find pursuant to 40 CFR 142.58(a) that any PWS
is eligible for the two-year federal PFOA and PFOS MCLs exemption from
April 26, 2029 until April 26, 2031 if it meets the proposed
information requirements in 40 CFR 142.58(b), is located in a state,
territory, or Tribe that does not have primacy for 40 CFR part 141
subpart Z, was in operation on or prior to June 25, 2024, and does not
have a variance from the requirements of the PFOA and PFOS MCLs.
Unable To Comply With the PFOA and PFOS MCLs Due to Compelling Factors
Through the inclusion of SDWA 1416 exemption provisions, Congress
recognized that PWSs may not be able to achieve compliance with the
MCLs by the dates prescribed under SDWA 1412(b)(10). Exemptions provide
[[Page 29429]]
systems that are unable to comply due to compelling factors more time
to achieve compliance, including small and rural systems that might
experience particular hardship due to economies of scale and technical
expertise challenges. In the Agency's evaluation of the first statutory
exemption eligibility criterion, regardless of system size and
location, the EPA evaluated new information available since the 2024
PFAS NPDWR and considered several compelling factors, including those
related to economic, technical, and logistical limitations and proposes
that collectively they support a finding that some water systems that
exceed the PFOA and PFOS MCLs may be unable to comply with those MCLs
by the current compliance date of April 26, 2029.
The first compelling factor that the EPA evaluated relates to
capital improvements for implementing the PFOA and PFOS MCLs. In the
2024 NPDWR, the EPA determined that there are multiple Best Available
Technologies (BATs) for PFOA and PFOS that are listed in table 1 to
paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 142.62 (USEPA, 2024e); these technologies
continue to currently be widely available. Though the EPA does not
require treatment technology or any specific action to achieve MCL
compliance, and a very small subset of systems may select non-treatment
options, the EPA anticipates the majority of systems that will be
required to take action to address levels of PFOA and PFOS exceeding
the MCLs will need to make capital improvements and install one of
these BATs. Both as part of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR and in accordance with
40 CFR 142.5 for this proposed rulemaking, the EPA considered the types
of capital improvement activities that could reasonably be undertaken
and the time necessary to conduct these activities, consistent with
financial consequences to ratepayers, in order to choose and implement
one of the PFAS removal BATs. Moreover, in the promulgation of the 2024
PFAS NPDWR, the EPA's evaluation of these capital improvement
activities led to a determination that a two-year capital improvement
extension, the allowable time provided under SDWA 1412(b)(10), was
necessary for water systems to achieve MCL compliance given the
information available at that time. Since promulgation of that rule,
the EPA has further assessed current circumstances and has found that,
in addition to factors that have become evident since the promulgation
of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, many of the capital improvement considerations
justifying allowing the additional two years under SDWA 1412(b)(10) are
still significant issues for water systems; therefore, there are
compelling reasons why some water systems will need additional time for
MCL compliance under SDWA 1416(f) exemption authority. Specifically,
the record since the 2024 PFAS NPDWR includes current evidence of
escalating construction and equipment costs in the intervening years.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS), inflation in
construction materials for PWS equipment increased by over 20 percent
between 2024 and 2025 alone (USBLS, 2025). There is also new evidence
of ongoing volatility in global steel markets that may create
procurement uncertainty and affect the timely ability of water systems
to maintain and upgrade treatment facilities to comply with the PFOA
and PFOS MCLs (NUCA, 2025; Reuters, 2025). Additionally, supply chain
disruptions continue to delay procurement of specialized filtration
media for PFAS treatment technologies which leads to longer-than-
anticipated development times and higher-than-expected capital cost
increases (AWWA, 2025).
Another compelling factor shown by new information available since
the 2024 PFAS NPDWR is workforce challenges, specifically related to
having a sufficient number of qualified personnel necessary to operate
the advanced treatment facilities that remove PFAS in drinking water
(AWWA, 2025; NRWA, 2024; USGAO, 2024). The EPA acknowledges that though
there are overall workforce issues in the drinking water treatment
sector beyond those specific to PFAS, this is only further exacerbated
by the need for operators with higher-level qualifications. Without
these more advanced operators, even if water systems are able to plan
and install the PFAS removal treatment technologies, they may not have
an adequate workforce to actually operate the new systems. Moreover,
the American Water Works Association's (AWWA's) 2025 State of the
Industry Report highlights the critical challenges associated with the
water workforce, including retirements, recruitment and retainment
difficulties, and specialized skill needs, such as those needed for
treating PFAS (AWWA, 2025). Without additional time through the federal
exemptions, some systems that exceed the PFOA and PFOS MCLs are
unlikely to be able to secure the necessary skilled personnel or
enhance the expertise of existing operators by the current compliance
date for the PFOA and PFOS MCLs.
Financial limitations are also a compelling factor that many water
systems face in achieving MCL compliance. Regulation of PFOA and PFOS
in PWSs is estimated to result in significant health benefits, however,
the costs, which are likely to be ultimately born by the ratepayers for
these systems, are considerable. According to the AWWA's 2025 State of
the Water Industry Report, financing of capital improvements for both
essential upgrades and new treatment technologies, such as those used
for treating PFAS, is the greatest challenge identified by water
systems of all sizes. Additionally, less than half of the water systems
surveyed in AWWA's 2025 Report are confident in their ability to fund
the costs through rates and fees and stated that determining how to
fund these improvements will require identifying and evaluating the
full range of funding sources while balancing the costs to customers
(AWWA, 2025). Therefore, though many water systems are able to fully
meet the requirements of the rule, some water systems may face
financial hardship and economic challenges and other compelling
circumstances in the short-term, making them unable to comply with the
regulation by the current compliance date.
The EPA also evaluated a number of other considerations that, when
combined with the previously discussed capital improvement, workforce
challenges, and financial hardship, are likely to significantly
influence water systems' ability to comply with the MCLs by 2029.
Moreover, when collectively considering the cumulative effects of these
compelling factors and other considerations, water systems are much
more likely to effectively and successfully implement and maintain
compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs when granted additional time
provided through the federal exemptions.
First, exemptions would allow systems more time and flexibility to
determine and comprehensively evaluate all of their financial
assistance and funding options for capital improvements, making the
most cost-effective decisions for their customers and water system
financial sustainability. This time will be particularly beneficial for
small, rural and disadvantaged systems with less expertise in
undertaking these activities. Specific to supporting water systems with
these activities, exemptions would also allow the EPA to offer
assistance through the Agency's PFAS OUTreach
[[Page 29430]]
(PFAS OUT) and Tackling Emerging Contaminants (TEC) Real Water
Technical Assistance (RealWaterTA) initiatives to a much greater number
of systems needing financial and technical aid to achieve compliance
with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs. The EPA's PFAS OUT initiative specifically
supports communities in addressing PFAS and will continue to work
directly with water systems by connecting them with the available
funding, tools, and technical assistance opportunities to facilitate
capital improvements and comply with the drinking water standards.
Furthermore, additional time would allow for state-offered technical
assistance or the EPA's TEC RealWaterTA initiative to directly impact
more communities. The RealWaterTA initiative aims to further the
administration of the noncompetitive Emerging Contaminants in Small or
Disadvantaged Communities grant (EC-SDC) by helping small or
disadvantaged communities assess and address emerging contaminants and
PFAS in their drinking water, connect to federal funding through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), evaluate engineering
alternatives, and comply with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs (USEPA, 2026).
Systems will also benefit in their ability to achieve compliance from
other EPA RealWaterTA offerings, such as Water Engineering Support.
With more time provided through these exemptions, a greater number of
water systems would realize the benefits of these EPA programs,
offsetting the resources they would have previously needed to
independently utilize in determining this information.
Another consideration related to the EPA's proposed two-year
exemption by rule is treatment technology improvements and innovation
after the promulgation of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, including the current
and future availability of more cost-effective PFAS removal
technologies. By allowing more time through the exemptions, the EPA
expects that emerging technologies not previously designated as BATs
will become better understood and may become more widely available.
Some of these emerging technologies have been demonstrated at the
bench-scale but have not yet been proven at the full scale or are not
yet commercially available (AWWA, 2023), while others have been, or are
currently being, demonstrated at the full scale and providing more time
will facilitate the identification of performance gaps so they can be
better implemented. Examples of these promising technologies may
include alternative sorbents and exchange media, separation methods
such as foam fractionation, and innovative destructive technologies.
Advances may also occur in managing treatment residuals (USEPA, 2024b).
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is another non-BAT technology that
has been shown in bench- and pilot-scale testing to be able to
effectively remove some PFAS, specifically long chain PFAS such as PFOA
and PFOS (up to >99 percent removal) (USEPA, 2023b). Use of this
technology may be more cost-efficient for certain systems, particularly
in the short-term, as it does not require upfront infrastructure costs
and can be integrated into the existing treatment system (Kentucky
Energy and Environment Cabinet, 2025). The effectiveness of PAC for
PFAS treatment is dependent on case-by-case scenarios at individual
PWSs, since percent removal depends on many factors such as PAC dosage,
PAC particle size, contact time, and influent water organic carbon
(USEPA, 2023b). However, if a water system already has PAC installed
for other purposes such as taste and odor, the system may be able to
enhance its PAC dose to easily and rapidly reduce PFOA and PFOS
concentrations (Nakazawa et al., 2023; Alameddine et al., 2025). In
addition, PAC may be particularly effective for systems that require
modest percent removals due to marginal MCL exceedances (Crone et al.,
2019; USEPA, 2018), and, given that the current results of the UCMR 5
demonstrate that approximately 15 to 20 percent of UCMR 5 systems are
exceeding the PFOA and/or PFOS MCLs at levels slightly higher than the
MCLs, these systems and other non-UCMR systems with similar levels may
specifically benefit from additional time as this alternative
technology continues to be investigated for full-scale performance
effectiveness and becomes more widely implemented.
Similarly, at the time of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR promulgation in April
2024, the EPA provided that the NSF/American National Standards
Institute (NSF/ANSI) standard for PFOA and PFOS removal in point-of-use
and point-of-entry (POU and POE) devices did not meet the PFOA and PFOS
MCLs set through the 2024 PFAS NPDWR. However, the EPA also stated in
the 2024 PFAS NPDWR that it anticipates that POU and POE devices will
eventually comply with the MCLs (USEPA, 2024b). Though the NSF/ANSI
standard is not yet revised to assure the POE and POU certified devices
will consistently reduce PFOA and PFOS levels to below the MCLs, the
EPA is aware that the NSF/ANSI Drinking Water Treatment Unit Joint
Committee Task Group is currently continuing the process to update
their standards to align with the 2024 PFAS NPDWR (NSF, 2024).
Therefore, the EPA continues to reasonably expect that allowing more
time for MCL compliance through exemptions will result in greater
flexibility and the availability of POU and POE devices as both an
additional and lower-cost compliance option, specifically for very
small water systems and certain NTNCWS such as schools, factories,
office buildings, and hospitals that provide their own water. These
cost savings could be substantial, with the EPA estimating that the
annual cost savings per household for POU treatment instead of
centralized granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment for systems
serving 500 or fewer, which account for over 60 percent of all water
systems subject to the rule requirements, would be a minimum of 40
percent to as much as a 72 percent savings (USEPA, 2024f).
The EPA also considered the availability of initial monitoring data
for PFOA and PFOS, which all systems are required to collect by April
2027 under the requirements of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR and will be used to
make informed decisions on treatment needs for many PWSs across the
country. This includes data collected under UCMR 5, which requires all
PWSs serving 3,300 or more people, and a representative sample of
smaller systems, to monitor for 29 PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.
Sampling under UCMR 5 concluded in December 2025, with the final
dataset available in 2026 (USEPA, 2021c). Systems with previously
acquired data through state or other appropriate monitoring, and those
that have participated in UCMR 5, are expected to have reduced initial
monitoring costs as these systems may use these monitoring results to
support implementation of monitoring requirements of the 2024 PFAS
NPDWR in accordance with 40 CFR 141.902(b)(1)(vi).
Having access to their initial monitoring data will allow many
utilities to have a complete understanding of PFOA and PFOS occurrence
in their systems and whether capital improvements are necessary to
comply with the MCLs. For systems that will need to make capital
improvements, their full individual system results, once collected,
will provide systems with information to determine the most efficient
technology solution and secure capital improvement funding which can
take a
[[Page 29431]]
significant amount of time. Moreover, once this funding is secured,
additional time to actually implement the capital improvement steps and
achieve MCL compliance will be necessary. Thus, the PFOA and PFOS
exemptions would allow for more initial monitoring data to be
collected, including the complete UCMR 5 dataset to be available,
allowing water systems to use this data in making the most fully
informed and cost-efficient decisions regarding PFOA and PFOS treatment
needs tailored to local water quality conditions.
An additional consideration the EPA evaluated relates to the
broader strategies announced by the EPA to protect drinking water
sources from PFAS before entering PWSs (USEPA, 2025a; USEPA, 2025b).
The EPA has announced the development of effluent limitations
guidelines (ELGs) for certain PFAS that will help stop PFAS from
entering drinking water systems and hold facilities that are
discharging these contaminants into surface water accountable. By
stopping PFAS from entering source waters, the forthcoming ELGs are
expected to minimize the occurrence of PFAS in drinking water sources,
as well as other environment matrices, thereby reducing the cost burden
for downstream water systems and the cost-of-living for community
members served by those systems (USEPA, 2025a; USEPA, 2025b). The
additional time for these efforts to be implemented may allow for any
decreases in contamination to be realized in response to these source
reduction efforts and may ultimately preclude the need for installing
costly treatment technologies or impact decisions on the water systems'
most effective treatment technology selection.
In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes to find that some
PWSs that exceed the MCLs under 40 CFR part 141 subpart Z may be
impacted by one or more of the compelling factors identified earlier in
this section and, as a result will be unable to comply with the PFOA
and PFOS MCLs by April 26, 2029. Under this proposal, any such system
must submit a statement that it cannot comply with the PFOA and PFOS
MCLs due to compelling factors. For any water systems requesting the
two-year federal exemption, the proposed rule requires the submission
of such statement in 40 CFR 142.58(b). The EPA requests comment on this
proposed finding, as well as these and other compelling factors, and
supporting information the Agency should consider in taking final
action on this proposal.
Public Water System in Operation on Date of Rule Promulgation or New
System Has No Reasonable Alternative
The second statutory exemption eligibility criterion for systems
requires that a PWS be in operation on the effective date of the
maximum contaminant level (i.e., June 25, 2024) or, if it was not in
operation at that time, has no reasonable alternative source of
drinking water. As part of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, the EPA determined that
approximately 66,000 PWSs would be subject to the rule requirements
(USEPA, 2024b; USEPA, 2024e). All of these systems meet SDWA 1416(a)(2)
exemption eligibility criterion because they were in operation at that
time. Systems seeking the two-year federal exemption under this
proposed rulemaking would be required to provide the EPA with the date
of their initial system operations pursuant to 40 CFR 142.58(b).
Systems that initiated operations following June 25, 2024, would not be
eligible for a federal exemption under this rule without demonstrating
that no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available to
the system. An exemption may be available to such a system under the
existing regulations for case-by-case exemptions issued by the EPA (see
40 CFR 142.50 through 142.57).
Unreasonable Risk to Health (URTH)
The third statutory exemption eligibility criterion requires that
the granting of the exemption will not result in an URTH. Based on
Congress including exemption provisions in SDWA with the clear
intention that they be used to address systems that may need additional
time to achieve compliance, Congress necessarily contemplated that the
customers of these systems would be exposed to drinking water above the
MCL for the period of the exemption and there would be some risk to
health present. The limitation that Congress imposed on this excess
exposure is that it will not constitute an ``unreasonable'' risk to
health. SDWA provides no definition of an URTH; nor does it prescribe
criteria for making this determination. In contrast, the statute
expressly defines health-based MCLGs and feasibility-based MCLs. In
particular, an MCLG is defined explicitly as ``the maximum level of a
contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse
health effects would occur, allowing for an adequate margin of safety''
which is the same as a no risk level. Therefore, Congress has left to
the EPA's judgment the determination of what factors to consider and
the determination of how much risk above the MCLs and MCLGs is
``unreasonable'' for the exemption time period.
While a two-year exemption from the PFOA and PFOS MCLs poses a risk
to health, the EPA proposes that, for purposes of implementing SDWA
1416 exemption provisions, this risk is not ``unreasonable'' for
systems with concentrations below 12 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS.
However, the EPA notes that this should not create a presumption that
concentrations greater than this do or would result in an URTH. In
accordance, the EPA seeks comment on whether the risk to human health
that may occur due to this amount of exposure (12 ppt) to a previously
unregulated contaminant, over a limited period of time, is
unreasonable. This concentration is within the average range of current
state PFOA and PFOS standards (USEPA, 2024e). Additionally, this level
would have the ancillary benefit of assisting in the identification of
the highest risk systems, and the communities they serve, to prioritize
implementing long-term compliance actions. In this proposed rulemaking,
the EPA is requesting comment on the proposal to use this level in
assessing whether there is an URTH and any other levels the Agency
should consider when evaluating SDWA 1416(a)(3) exemption criteria.
For systems seeking an exemption with any most recent PFOA and PFOS
sampling result(s) at or above 12 ppt, the EPA proposes to find that a
two-year exemption would not present an URTH if, as a condition of the
exemption, these systems would have to implement interim control
measures during the two-year exemption period to mitigate the
additional health risks that may occur as a result of the exemption.
These measures, pursuant to 40 CFR 142.59, are intended to reduce and
provide information on PFAS exposures for consumers of these water
systems. Proposed control measures include installation, operation, and
maintenance of POU and/or POE devices, providing alternative water
sources, making water filtration pitchers available, implementing
source water controls, providing public education materials on reducing
PFAS from various sources including drinking water, and conducting
community outreach activities. Please see section III.D.1.b.i of this
preamble for more information on these proposed control measure actions
and exemption requirements. The EPA acknowledges that these mitigation
actions may not reduce PFOA and PFOS to either the MCLs or below 12
ppt; however, the EPA expects they can
[[Page 29432]]
significantly reduce concentrations of these and other PFAS in drinking
water and inform consumers of steps they can take to reduce PFOA and
PFOS exposures from drinking water and other sources of PFAS.
Furthermore, these interim control measures are only intended to
improve public health protection during the brief two-year exemption
period so that the exemption would not result in an URTH while water
systems work towards implementation of compliance technologies or other
non-treatment compliance strategies to ensure compliance with the PFOA
and PFOS MCLs by the end of the proposed exemption period (April 26,
2031).
Under SDWA, as well as the proposed national exemptions rulemaking,
an ``unreasonable risk'' determination applies only to PWSs in the
context of evaluating SDWA 1416(a) criteria and their ability to
achieve compliance with NPDWRs. The EPA acknowledges that there are
risks to human health due to PFOA and PFOS and that holding polluters
accountable is a priority. In an April 2024 announcement, the EPA
emphasized that it is taking action to ``hold polluters accountable''
and to ``establish a clear liability framework that ensures the
polluter pays and passive receivers are protected'' (USEPA, 2025b).
Accordingly, the EPA announced in May 2024, ``Drinking water systems
are passive receivers of PFOA and PFOS. Polluters can contaminate the
surface waters or aquifers that these systems rely on to provide the
drinking water to their communities'' (USEPA, 2025a), and the EPA
intends to continue to use its regulatory and enforcement tools to hold
polluters accountable. Wherever feasible, and particularly in cases
where a polluter who caused PFAS contamination can be readily
identified, the EPA intends to reduce costs to PWSs by making those
responsible for PFAS contamination bear the burden of cleanup, and as
needed, provide alternate water to communities, rather than shifting
that responsibility to the communities that rely on those systems. The
``unreasonable risk'' standard under SDWA 1416 governs whether allowing
additional time for PWSs to come into compliance will ensure that
persons served by PWSs facing risks from ongoing contamination will not
be ``unreasonably'' burdened in light of the costs and feasibilities
associated with compliance by water systems with a new drinking water
standard. It is not a standard relevant to ensuring that polluters are
held accountable or otherwise liable for past or ongoing contamination
under enforcement authorities.
Of note, the ``unreasonable risk'' finding under SDWA 1416 differs
fundamentally from a potential ``substantial endangerment'' finding
under SDWA 1431. An ``unreasonable risk'' in the context of determining
whether a water system may qualify for an exemption from compliance
under SDWA 1416 assumes a level of risk to the persons served by the
PWS but balances that risk with other factors such as feasibility of
treatment, cost, and timeline, so that the risk associated with a
compliance delay is not deemed unreasonable over the time-limited
exemption period. By contrast, SDWA 1431 authority does not require any
findings regarding cost or feasibility. Thus, any regulatory
interpretation of ``unreasonable risk'' under SDWA 1416 is limited to
PWSs seeking compliance exemptions and is irrelevant to actions already
taken or to be taken under potential substantial endangerment findings,
including those against polluters. Therefore, this proposed action,
including the proposed finding that mitigation measures are not
necessary for a two-year exemption to meet the statutory requirement
that ``granting of the exemption will not result in an unreasonable
risk to health'' if PFOA and PFOS concentrations are below 12 ppt, does
not apply to any PFAS releases or to any EPA enforcement actions taken
in the past, nor does it limit any actions the EPA may take against
those entities in the future. Indeed, if the Agency finds that
contamination within the exemption timeframe may present an imminent or
substantial endangerment to immediate and/or long-term health, the EPA
does have authority to act as ``deem[ed] necessary in order to protect
the health of such persons'' under SDWA 1431(a). As previously
requested, the Agency welcomes public comment on the proposed URTH
finding when evaluating SDWA 1416(a)(3) exemption criteria, and whether
the risk to human health that may occur due to exposure to PFOA or PFOS
at levels less than 12 ppt, over a limited period of time, is
unreasonable.
Management and Restructuring
The fourth statutory exemption eligibility criterion under SDWA
1416(a)(4) requires that management and restructuring changes (or both)
cannot reasonably be made by the water system that will result in
compliance with the MCL or, if compliance cannot be achieved, improve
the quality of the drinking water. In evaluating this statutory
exemption eligibility criterion, in accordance with 40 CFR
142.20(b)(1)(i), the EPA considered the following measures: (1)
Consideration of rate increases, accounting changes, the appointment of
a state-certified operator under the State's Operator Certification
program, and contractual agreements for joint operation with one or
more PWSs; (2) Activities consistent with the State's Capacity
Development Strategy to help the PWS acquire and maintain technical,
financial, and managerial capacity to come into compliance with the
Act; and (3) Ownership changes, physical consolidation with another
PWS, or other feasible and appropriate means of consolidation which
would result in compliance with the Act.
As described earlier in this section, the EPA forecasts that the
large majority of all systems exceeding the PFOA and/or PFOS MCLs will
install advanced treatment technologies in order to come into
compliance. Therefore, for most systems unable to comply, implementing
management and restructuring changes will not be sufficient to result
in compliance with the MCLs. Additionally, as previously stated and
discussed in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR preamble, the process for new
installation of advanced PFAS drinking water treatment technologies,
including the procurement, planning, construction, and piloting
activities that must be undertaken, takes several years to be completed
in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The EPA proposes to
find that, for some water systems that exceed the MCLs, management and
restructuring changes supporting the ability of the system to install
and use advanced treatment, such as rate increases and new system
operators and owners, cannot reasonably be made in time to result in
compliance with the MCLs by the current compliance date. Similarly, the
state capacity development programs, that small and disadvantaged
systems frequently participate in, also can take several years to
effect significant results and would not be able to reasonably impact
compliance with the MCLs.
To achieve compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs, the EPA
anticipates that some water systems will seek to restructure, such as
entering into water system partnerships or physically consolidating or
connecting with another nearby water system. Though these types of
actions and agreements are feasible, they can take many years to be
implemented, often involving major infrastructure projects to
interconnect, intergovernmental and other business agreements,
financing steps, and community engagement activities (California State
Water Resources
[[Page 29433]]
Control Board, 2024). Moreover, as a result of this complex process,
this will be a more viable and carefully implemented option for water
systems granted additional time under the federal exemption.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 142.20(b)(1)(i), the EPA also considered the
availability of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) assistance
and other federal and state programs that are reasonably likely to be
available within the period of the exemption to implement the measures
discussed previously associated with management and restructuring
changes and to support compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs. Funding
mechanisms provided to states help offset costs borne by ratepayers
when systems are forced to adopt more advanced technologies to address
emerging contaminants. The EPA finds that in accordance with the
regulation, funding for capital improvement projects and other rule
compliance activities is likely to be available within the period of
the exemption. The EPA notes that funding is also likely to be
available prior to the period of the exemption which will support
activities and projects continuing to be undertaken within the period
of the exemption. More specifically, IIJA funds currently available
include billions of dollars to specifically support addressing emerging
contaminants, like PFAS, in drinking water, particularly the
installation of capital improvements such as treatment facilities.
Though the EPA recognizes these funds are already appropriated and will
be allotted to states prior to the period of the exemption, given the
lengthy time associated with the overall capital improvements process,
the use of the funds and the infrastructure projects and activities the
funds support is expected to continue to be undertaken during the
period of the exemption. Moreover, allotted funds that are not used by
a state will be reallotted to eligible states over subsequent years
that align with the exemption period. In the case of IIJA funds
appropriated for emerging contaminants such as PFAS, this means that
additional funding will flow to states with demonstrated need for
emerging contaminant funding. For other federal funding sources likely
to be available within the period of the exemption, such as those non-
IIJA funds available through the DWSRF, EPA grants, and the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development funding
program, though the EPA is unable to confirm the future amounts of
these other funding sources during the period of the exemption, based
on past availability, the EPA anticipates there are likely to be
additional available funds during the period of the exemption. The EPA
further notes that there have been billions of dollars made available
to water systems as part of finalized private liability settlement
agreements with PFAS dischargers (USDCSC, 2025). These funds, as well
as any others from future settlement agreements, may also be available
during the period of the exemption. Therefore, the EPA expects there
will be available funding within and prior to the period of the
exemption, and the exemptions will support the time necessary for
systems to determine and obtain these funds in the best way to lessen
financial impacts on their consumers and align with their capital
improvement plans and state priorities.
2. Proposal To Grant Water System Exemptions
SDWA 1416(b)(2)(B) states that no exemption shall be granted unless
the PWS establishes that they are taking all practicable steps to meet
the MCL. It also provides that the system must demonstrate at least one
of the following three criteria: (1) The system cannot meet the
standard without capital improvements which cannot be completed prior
to the date established pursuant to SDWA 1412(b)(10); (2) In the case
of a system which needs financial assistance for the necessary
improvement, the system has entered into an agreement to obtain such
financial assistance or assistance pursuant to SDWA 1452, or any other
federal or state program is reasonably likely to be available during
the period of the exemption; or (3) The system has entered into an
enforceable agreement to become part of a regional water system.
As described in section III.C.1 of this preamble, the EPA expects
that nearly all water systems exceeding the PFOA and PFOS MCLs will
need to make capital improvements to achieve compliance with the
standard and, due to compelling factors and other considerations
detailed previously, many of these systems will not be able to make
these improvements prior to April 26, 2029. According to AWWA's 2025
State of the Industry Report, numerous water systems will need
financial assistance to make these improvements (AWWA, 2025). The EPA
proposes to find that federal or state funding programs, such as the
DWSRF, EPA grant programs, and USDA Rural Development, are reasonably
likely to be available for those water systems in need of financial
assistance during the period of the exemption, including a significant
amount of IIJA funding that is both currently and anticipated to be
available prior to the exemption period for the capital improvement
projects being undertaken during the exemption period. Therefore, based
upon some systems not being able to fully make capital improvements
prior to April 26, 2029, the likelihood that many systems that exceed
the MCLs will need financial assistance in order to make the required
capital improvements, and the known and expected availability of
federal and state funding to support rule compliance, under this
proposal, a water system that exceeds the PFOA or PFOS MCLs and
provides the EPA with the required information under 40 CFR 142.58(b)
will meet SDWA 1416(b)(2)(B) criteria and will qualify for the federal
exemption.
D. National Exemptions Framework Implementation and Primacy
Considerations
Under the proposed national exemption framework and process, all
systems without a variance from the PFOA and PFOS MCL requirements,
those in operation on or before June 24, 2024, and those located in
states that do not have primacy for the PFOA and PFOS MCLs are eligible
for the two-year exemption upon submission of a request documenting its
qualification for the exemption to the EPA. To request the federal
exemption, the proposed rule requires a water system to directly notify
the EPA that it is seeking an exemption and provide the Agency with
information according to the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 142.58(b)
by November 16, 2026. The EPA proposes that the exemption would be
granted by operation of the rule if the water system meets the proposed
requirements and unless the exemption is terminated by the EPA upon a
finding that the system has failed to comply with the requirements of
the exemption. For systems granted the exemption, PFOA and PFOS MCL
compliance must be achieved by April 26, 2031.
1. PFOA and PFOS Federal Exemptions Process and Requirements
a. Exemptions Process and Timing
As discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble and in accordance
with 40 CFR 142.58(a), the EPA proposes that all water systems within
states that do not have primacy for 40 CFR part 141 subpart Z, were in
operation as of June 25, 2024, and do not have a variance from the PFOA
and PFOS MCL requirements and that meet the other criteria in the rule
are eligible for a
[[Page 29434]]
federal PFOA and PFOS MCL exemption from April 26, 2029 through April
26, 2031. Per 40 CFR 142.58(a), any eligible water system will be
exempt from the PFOA and PFOS MCL requirements upon providing the EPA
with required information under 40 CFR 142.58(b) including: (1) Water
system information (i.e., Public Water System Identification Number
[PWSID], water system name, contact information, and, if defined as a
wholesale system according to 40 CFR 141.2, a list of all consecutive
system(s) through which water is distributed, or if defined as a
consecutive system according to 40 CFR 141.2, a list of the wholesale
system(s) providing finished water); (2) Initial date of system
operations; (3) A statement that the system cannot comply with the PFOA
and PFOS MCLs by April 26, 2029, due to economic or other compelling
factors, that an alternative water source is not available to meet the
PFOA and PFOS MCLs, and the system cannot reasonably make management
changes or restructure to meet the requirements of the rule; (4) A
statement that the system is taking all practicable steps to meet the
standard. The statement must also include that the system cannot meet
the standard without capital improvements which cannot be completed
prior to April 26, 2029; or, in the case of a system that needs
financial assistance for necessary improvements, that the system has
entered into an agreement to obtain such financial assistance (or
assistance pursuant to SDWA 1452) or any other federal or state program
is reasonably likely to be available during the period of the
exemption; or the system has entered into an enforceable agreement to
become part of a regional PWS; (5) Most recent sample result(s) for
PFOA and PFOS; and (6) For water systems with any PFOA or PFOS results
equal to or exceeding 12 ppt, selection of and certification that at
least two interim control measures described in section III.D.1.b.i of
this preamble and in 40 CFR 142.59 will be implemented during the
exemption period to ensure no URTH. Water systems will be required to
submit this information to the EPA no later than 180 days following
rule promulgation.\1\ The EPA will provide details on the process for
submitting information concurrent with final rule promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA encourages eligible PWSs to submit exemption
requests and required information as soon as possible following rule
promulgation. Once a state obtains primacy or interim primacy for
the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, the EPA will no longer be authorized to issue
exemptions for PWSs in that state (see section III.C.2 of this
preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 40 CFR 142.58(c), only those eligible water
systems submitting an exemption request and required information under
40 CFR 142.58(b) would be exempt from PFOA and PFOS MCL requirements.
The EPA proposes that an exemption for a water system may be terminated
if the system fails to comply with the requirements or conditions of
the exemption, including implementation of control measures required
for applicable water systems prescribed under 40 CFR 142.59 and
detailed in section III.D.1.b.i of this preamble. For all systems that
are covered by the federal exemption, the EPA proposes (per 40 CFR
141.58(c)(2)) that the schedule for compliance to meet the PFOA and
PFOS MCLs is April 26, 2031. As discussed earlier in this section, the
EPA's proposed finding that the exemption would not result in an URTH
is based, in part, on the limited effect of a two-year exemption. For
all systems without an exemption, MCL compliance is required by April
26, 2029, pursuant to 40 CFR 141.900(b)(4). Water systems that seek to
obtain additional exemptions beyond the two-year federal exemption
period may request their primacy agency to grant an exemption for up to
one additional year under the provisions of SDWA 1416(a). Further, in
accordance with SDWA 1416(b)(2)(C), for smaller water systems (those
serving <=3,300 population) that need financial assistance for
necessary improvements, primacy agencies may grant renewals of the
exemption not to exceed six more years to achieve compliance with the
PFOA and PFOS MCLs.
b. PFOA and PFOS Exemption Requirements
i. PFOA and PFOS Reduction Control Measures
SDWA 1416(a)(3) requires that the granting of an exemption will not
result in an URTH. As described in section III.C.1 of this preamble, to
evaluate this requirement and ensure that the exemption will not result
in an URTH, the EPA proposes that systems with any measured result(s)
for PFOA or PFOS equal to or greater than 12 ppt must implement PFOA
and PFOS reduction control measures in order to be covered by the
exemption.
The EPA proposes six control measure options that applicable water
systems could select and implement to reduce PFOA and PFOS
concentrations and provide information for consumers to decrease their
exposure to PFAS. Control measures are not required to reduce
concentrations to levels as low as the MCLs or achieve MCL compliance,
rather they are intended to temporarily decrease concentrations of PFOA
and PFOS and associated exposure during the period of the exemption
until longer term and more effective solutions can be implemented to
achieve MCL compliance. In accordance with 40 CFR 142.59, these
measures include providing water pitchers and filters certified to
reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations, delivering alternative water
supplies with lower levels of PFOA and PFOS, installing, operating, and
maintaining POU or POE devices certified to decrease PFOA and PFOS
concentrations, implementing actions and plans to decrease PFOA and
PFOS levels in sources of drinking water, distributing written public
education materials to consumers on PFOA and PFOS exposure sources, and
conducting community educational outreach activities on PFOA and PFOS
in drinking water. The EPA proposes to require water systems with any
PFOA or PFOS result(s) greater than or equal to 12 ppt to select and
implement at least two of these control measures during the period of
the exemption from April 26, 2029, through April 26, 2031, and make
each of the two control measures a water system selects available for
all customers. Additionally, the EPA proposes that the two control
measures selected cannot solely include public education materials and
public outreach activities. In determining which control measures to
implement, water systems should seek to implement those with the
greatest public health protection based on their site-specific
conditions. The EPA is requesting comment on these six control measures
and if there are other measures the Agency should consider.
Water Filtration Pitchers
The EPA proposes pitcher filters as a short-term control measure
option to reduce PFOA and PFOS. For the purposes of 40 CFR part 142
subpart F, the EPA proposes to define a pitcher filter under 40 CFR
142.2 as a non-plumbed filtration device, which consists of a gravity
fed water filtration cartridge and a filtered drinking water reservoir,
that is certified by an ANSI accredited certifier to reduce PFAS in
drinking water. Pitcher filters are not considered POU or POE devices,
which are defined in 40 CFR 141.2. Though there are currently no
pitcher filters certified to reduce PFOA and PFOS to the MCLs; there
are approximately 20 pitcher devices that have been certified by an
ANSI accredited certifying
[[Page 29435]]
organization to meet either the current (2022) or previous ANSI/NSF 53
standard, which require these devices to demonstrate a reduction of
PFOA and PFOS concentrations to at least 20 or 70 ppt, respectively.
Some of the accredited certifying organizations as well as pitcher
device companies have also stated that the devices can achieve
reduction to levels below 20 ppt (WQA, 2023; USEPA, 2024g; 4Patriots,
2024). Moreover, the 2022 total PFAS reduction ANSI/NSF 53 standard
sets a combined limit of 20 ppt for seven PFAS, including PFOA and
PFOS. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume PFOA and PFOS
concentrations in filtered water will be below 20 ppt considering the
other five PFAS as part of the combined limit. The EPA is also allowing
the use of pitcher filters that have been certified under the older
NSF/ANSI standard requiring PFOA and PFOS to 70 ppt. The EPA believes
that even for these filters, the majority will reduce concentrations to
below 20 ppt in most cases. This is because pitcher filters have been
found to be generally effective in removing PFOA and PFOS, often with
removal efficiencies greater than 50 percent and as high as 99+ percent
in some cases (Herkert et al., 2020; Mulhern et al., 2021; Teymoorian
et al., 2024; and Zar[eogon]bska et al., 2025). Based on the EPA's 2024
occurrence analyses supporting the Economic Analysis (EA), and the UCMR
5 data reported through October 2025, the vast majority of PWS samples
exceeding 4.0 ppt are below 40 ppt.\2\ Hence, even a pitcher filter
with only 50 percent average removal efficiency will reduce water
consumed to below 20 ppt in most cases. For modelling purposes, the EPA
is assuming that filters reduce PFOA and PFOS to 20 ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As of October 2025, only 13 of 60,633 UCMR 5 PFOA samples
and 28 of 60,627 PFOS samples exceed 40 ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as noted in section III.C.1 of this preamble, NSF/
ANSI is currently continuing the process to update their standards to
align with the 2024 PFAS NPDWR (NSF, 2024); thus, the EPA anticipates
that at the time of the exemption period, devices will likely be able
to achieve PFOA and PFOS reduction to levels as low as the PFOA and
PFOS MCLs. For systems that elect to implement pitcher filters as a
control measure, in accordance with 40 CFR 142.59(c) any devices must
be certified by an ANSI accredited certifier to meet the ANSI/NSF
standard (currently ANSI/NSF standard 53). Additionally, water systems
will be required to provide pitcher devices, two years of replacement
filters, and instructions for their use and maintenance to consumers
served by the system upon request and make these available at all
drinking water tap locations in NTNCWSs.
Alternative Water Supplies
Another option for systems required to implement control measures
is the provision of alternative water supplies. Alternative water
supplies may include temporarily switching to a new source with lower
levels of PFOA and PFOS or blending of water supplies to reduce PFOA
and PFOS concentrations where the source change would not be a change
that could ``reasonably be made that will result in compliance.'' For
example, water systems could take these actions to temporarily reduce
PFOA and PFOS to lower levels, but it would not achieve lower levels
required for long-term MCL compliance. Alternative water supplies may
also include the distribution of bottled water. For systems electing to
utilize bottled water as a condition of the PFOA and PFOS exemption,
the PWS must follow the requirements prescribed in 40 CFR 142.62(g). In
summary, this includes either: (1) developing a monitoring program for
bottled water, with reasonable assurances that it meets all MCLs; or,
(2) obtaining certification from the bottled water company that the
product has been taken from an approved source (as defined in 21 CFR
129.3(a)), the bottled water company has conducted monitoring (in
accordance with 21 CFR 129.80(g)(1) through (3)), and the bottled water
does not exceed other MCLs. Additionally, the water system is
responsible for delivering a sufficient amount of bottled water to
every person supplied by the water system.
Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Devices
A third option the EPA proposes for water systems to choose as a
condition of the exemption is the installation and maintenance of POU
or POE devices to reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations in drinking
water. In accordance with 40 CFR 141.2, POE devices are treatment
devices applied to the drinking water entering a house or building to
reduce contaminants in the drinking water distributed throughout the
house or building. A POU device is defined in 40 CFR 141.2 as a water
treatment device physically installed or connected to a single fixture,
outlet, or tap to reduce or remove contaminants in drinking water.
As discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, the NSF/ANSI
standard for PFOA and PFOS removal in POU and POE devices does not
currently meet the PFOA and PFOS MCLs. However, for the purposes of
these PFOA and PFOS exemptions, there are numerous POU and POE devices
that have been certified to meet the ANSI/NSF 53/58 standards and
reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations in drinking water to 20 or 70 ppt.
Additionally, several of the POU and POE providers or accredited
certifying organizations have stated that the devices can achieve PFOA
and PFOS reduction lower than 20 ppt (WQA, 2023; USEPA, 2024g). Similar
to water pitcher filters discussed earlier in this section, the EPA
expects that filters can reduce to levels below 20 ppt during much of
their use and also, that during the exemption period, devices will
likely be able to achieve PFOA and PFOS reduction to levels as low as
the PFOA and PFOS MCLs (NSF, 2024). Accordingly, use of these devices
will likely reduce concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water
and associated exposures to consumers during the period of the
exemption.
For systems that elect to implement POU or POE devices as one of
the control measures, the EPA proposes to apply the requirement of 40
CFR 142.62(h) that any device chosen must be certified by an ANSI
accredited certifier to meet the ANSI/NSF standard. PWSs must also meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 142.62(h). To summarize, these requirements
include: (1) the PWS must operate and maintain the POU and/or POE
treatment system; (2) prior to POU and/or POE device installation, the
PWS must have an approved monitoring plan to ensure public health
protection equivalent to that provided by central water treatment; (3)
the PWS must apply effective technology under an approved plan and the
microbiological safety of the water must be continuously maintained;
(4) certification of performance, field testing, and, if not already
included in the certification process, an engineering design review of
the POU or POE devices; (5) the design and application of the POU or
POE devices must consider the potential for increasing concentrations
of heterotrophic bacteria in water treated with activated carbon; and
(6) buildings connected to the system also have sufficient POU or POE
devices that are properly installed, maintained, and monitored such
that all consumers will be protected. The EPA is seeking comment on
whether it should not apply some or all of these requirements to POU
and POE devices selected as one of the control measures to establish
that
[[Page 29436]]
the exemption will not result in an URTH.
Source Water Controls
Determining the cause(s) of contaminants and reducing their
concentrations in sources of drinking water can be more cost-effective
and sustainable than installing treatment technologies and continuously
treating contaminated drinking water. The EPA has many resources and
funding programs that can assist drinking water systems in conducting
and updating Source Water Assessments (SWAs) and planning and
implementing investigations of PFAS contamination sources during the
exemption period. These include the EPA's Drinking Water Mapping
Application to Protect Source Water (DWMAPS), the EPA's Funding
Integration Tool for Source Water (FITS), EC-SDC grant program, and the
EPA's RealWaterTA program described previously in section III.C.1 of
this preamble. There may also be resources available at the state level
to support these types of source water assessment and funding
activities addressing sources of PFAS.
The EPA's DWMAPS can be utilized to help investigate known or
potential sources of PFAS contamination (USEPA, 2025c). Specifically,
DWMAPS is an online mapping tool that drinking water utilities can
employ to update SWAs and protection plans. SWAs involve compiling an
inventory of existing/potential sources of contamination within a
system's source water area, determining the susceptibility of the
system to contamination, determining where source water controls may be
necessary, and distributing the results to the local stakeholders for
further action (USEPA, 2025d). Although continuous updating of a SWA is
not required, some water systems voluntarily update or evaluate their
assessment through actions such as delineating their source water
protection area with updated geospatial data and utilizing advanced
hydrological and hydrogeologic fate and transport models and new data
on emerging contaminants (URI, 2022; USEPA, 2025e).
Federal funding for initiatives that protect source water can be
identified by using the EPA's FITS tool (USEPA, 2025f). For more
information on FITS and examples of previously funded projects, visit
https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/fits. This funding may
support measures such as projects that trap or treat contaminated water
before reaching source water, develop maps or models that display PFAS
concentrations, and PFAS monitoring training and equipment, for
example. Water systems can also contact Source Water Protection
Coordinators at the EPA Regional Offices to get more information and
connect with funding programs (USEPA, 2025g).
Additionally, drinking water systems are often passive receivers of
contaminants discharged by facilities upstream of the water system and
can have little control of the quality of their source waters. As
discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, the EPA is exploring and
has announced regulatory strategies, such as ELGs, to protect drinking
water sources from PFAS and hold polluters accountable for PFAS
contamination. States may also set discharge limits through other
regulatory mechanisms, including National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Therefore, the EPA proposes that another option water systems may
choose as a control measure is to develop actions to reduce PFOA and
PFOS in the sources of drinking water. For systems that elect source
water controls as a control measure, in accordance with 40 CFR
142.59(d) as proposed, the water system would need to certify one of
the following requirements: (1) A direct agreement with an entity
directly discharging PFOA and PFOS into the drinking water systems'
source water(s) that establishes reduction of the PFOA and PFOS
discharges; (2) Source water(s) of the system are subject to the
regulations that reduce PFOA and PFOS discharges in the source
water(s); (3) A source water assessment to identify and address known
and potential non-point and point sources of PFOA and PFOS; or (4)
Funding or technical assistance to implement source water assessment
planning or activities focused on addressing and reducing PFOA and
PFOS.
Public Education Materials
Public education of the sources and exposure pathways for PFOA and
PFOS is a very important component of reducing risk by increasing
consumer awareness of the potential health impacts and steps consumers
can take to reduce these impacts. While these materials will not
directly reduce PFOA and PFOS in drinking water in the same manner as
some of the other proposed control measures (i.e., pitcher filters, POU
and POE devices), providing consumers information will allow them to
better understand what PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS) are and possible
exposure from drinking water, as well as other potentially significant
sources of exposure. Moreover, with this information, consumers can
decrease their overall exposure to PFOA and PFOS both during and beyond
the exemption period.
As proposed, PWSs selecting written public education materials as a
control measure would be required to ensure the materials include, at a
minimum, content covering the following: (1) general explanation of
PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS; (2) health effects of PFAS, particularly
PFOA and PFOS and including specific information for pregnant people,
infants and children that may be impacted during critical life stages;
(3) possible sources of PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, including
drinking water, consumer products, environmental and occupational
factors, proximity to commercial and industrial sites, among others;
(4) consumer steps to reduce PFOA and PFOS exposure from drinking water
and other sources of PFAS; (5) analytical results for PFOA and PFOS in
the systems' drinking water; and (6) actions the water system is taking
to address PFOA and PFOS, and any other PFAS, in drinking water. If the
EPA finalizes this requirement, the EPA intends to develop guidance and
example public education materials that water systems may use to meet
this requirement.
To streamline the process for materials distribution, the EPA
proposes that these materials are provided to water system customers
concurrent with the delivery and timing requirements for CCRs (40 CFR
141.152) and PNs (40 CFR 141.204(b)(1)). This would include annually or
biannually in CCRs, depending on population served by the water system,
and annually (for all water system sizes) as part of Tier 3 PN (which
may be provided in a CCR pursuant to 40 CFR 141.204(b)(2)).
Additionally, to better ensure consumers that may be at greater risk of
exposure during the exemption period, including pregnant people and
those in critical life stages, are made aware of this educational
information, the EPA is also proposing that the materials must be
provided to relevant organizations within the water system's service
area. Relevant organizations include local public health agencies,
Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) and Head Start Programs, public and
private hospitals and medical clinics, pediatricians, and
obstetricians, gynecologists and midwives.
Community Outreach Activities
Similar to written public education materials, public outreach
activities are a key mechanism for informing consumers about PFOA and
PFOS in drinking water and other sources of
[[Page 29437]]
PFAS. Moreover, these types of activities allow the water system to
directly communicate with their consumers and provide information on
the actions the system is taking to address PFOA and PFOS in drinking
water. Additionally, like written public education materials, these
activities are not explicitly reducing PFOA and PFOS in drinking water
compared to other proposed control measures; however, it will allow
consumers greater awareness about their potential exposure and more
information to make better-informed choices related to their total PFAS
exposure.
For systems that elect to conduct community outreach activities as
a control measure, the EPA proposes that the activities must include a
discussion of PFOA and PFOS sampling results at the water system,
short-term mitigation steps the system is taking to reduce PFOA and
PFOS in drinking water, long-term actions the system is taking to
achieve PFOA and PFOS MCL compliance, steps consumers can take to
reduce PFOA and PFOS exposure from drinking water and other sources of
PFAS, and information on how to obtain a pitcher filter certified to
reduce PFOA and PFOS in drinking water as discussed earlier in this
section and required under 40 CFR 142.59(c). The types of community
outreach activities the water system can choose to conduct include
public meetings, participation in community events, contacting
customers directly via phone, text, email or door hanger, or social
media campaigns. Water systems must conduct at least two of these
activities within six months following the beginning of the exemption
period (i.e., by October 26, 2029) and every six months until the end
of the exemption period (i.e., April 26, 2031).
ii. Public Notification Requirements
As part of SDWA and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 141 subpart Q, the PN Rule establishes requirements that PWSs must
follow regarding the form, manner, frequency, and content of a public
notice. The requirement to provide PN under certain specified
circumstances is an integral part of the public health protection and
consumer Right-to-Know provisions of SDWA. Owners and operators of PWSs
are required to notify persons served when they fail to comply with the
requirements of the NPDWR; have a variance or exemption from the
drinking water regulations; or are facing other situations posing a
risk to public health. Under the PN Rule, the notification requirements
are based on the tier to which a violation or situation is assigned.
The EPA specifies three categories, or tiers, of PN requirements, to
account for the seriousness of the violation or situation and any
potential adverse health effects that may occur.
The PN Rule specifies the NPDWR violations and other situations
that require the water systems to provide public notice, including if a
system is operating under an exemption issued under SDWA 1416 or a
system fails to comply with the requirements of any schedule that has
been set under an exemption (table 1 to 40 CFR 141.201, appendix A to
40 CFR part 141 subpart Q). Systems operating under an exemption
granted under SDWA 1416, 40 CFR 141.204(a)(3) and (b)(1) require that
Tier 3 PN be issued not later than one year after the water system
begins operating under the exemption. Following the initial notice, the
water system must then repeat the notice annually for as long as the
exemption continues. The proposed rule does not treat a federal PFOA
and PFOS exemption differently for tiering purposes, consistent with
existing PN Rule requirements. The EPA requests comment on whether it
should require a Tier 2 notice for systems operating under an exemption
of the PFOA and PFOS MCLs and require systems to provide the notice
within 30 days of beginning to operate under the exemption.
Public notices for systems operating under an exemption must
include specific information required by 40 CFR 141.205(b)(1)
including: (1) An explanation of the reasons for the exemption; (2) The
date on which the exemption was issued; (3) A brief status report on
the steps the system is taking to install treatment, find alternative
sources of water, or otherwise comply with the terms and schedules of
the exemption; and (4) A notice of any opportunity for public input in
the review, or renewal, of the exemption. This information is required
to be included in an initial public notice of the PFOA and PFOS
exemption issued no later than April 26, 2030, and repeated annually
for the period of the exemption. Additionally, for systems required to
implement control measures, a status update on those measures must be
included according to 40 CFR 141.205(b)(1)(iii). The EPA requests
comment on additional content requirements for the Tier 3 PN of PFOA
and PFOS exemptions.
When a water system fails to comply with the terms and conditions
of an existing exemption, 40 CFR 141.203(a) and (b)(1) require that
Tier 2 PN be issued as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days
after the system learns of the violation. As required by 40 CFR
141.205(b)(2), public notices of an exemption violation must contain
information according to 40 CFR 141.205(a).
iii. Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
CWSs must prepare and deliver to its customers a CCR annually or
biannually (beginning January 1, 2027, for systems serving populations
of 10,000 or greater) in accordance with requirements in 40 CFR part
141 subpart O. CCRs provide customers with information about their
local drinking water quality as well as information regarding the water
system's compliance with drinking water regulations. If a system is
operating under the terms of an exemption issued under SDWA 1416, as
required by 40 CFR 141.153(c)(2) and (g), the report must include the
definition ``Variances and Exemptions: State or EPA permission not to
meet an MCL or a treatment technique under certain conditions'', and
contain the following information: (1) An explanation of the reasons
for the exemption; (2) The date on which the exemption was issued; (3)
A brief status report on the steps the system is taking to install
treatment, find alternative sources of water, or otherwise comply with
the terms and schedules of the exemption; and (4) A notice of any
opportunity for public input in the review, or renewal, of the
exemption. For CWSs that choose to opt-in to the proposed PFOA and PFOS
exemptions, this information would be required to be included in CCRs
between April 26, 2029, and April 26, 2031. Additionally, for systems
required to implement proposed control measures under 40 CFR 142.59, a
status update on those measures must be included according to 40 CFR
141.153(g)(3).
2. Primacy Considerations
As discussed in section III.B of this preamble, SDWA 1416(f)
authorizes the EPA Administrator to exempt PWSs from MCL requirements
if the state, Tribe, or territory (collectively referred to as
``state'' for the purposes of this section) does not have primacy for
the new or revised NPDWR. To facilitate a streamlined approach for PFOA
and PFOS MCL exemptions and to reduce the burden on primacy agencies,
the EPA is proposing this national exemption framework that would allow
the Agency to provide MCL exemptions to PWSs during the time period
prior to when a state obtains primacy.
Once a state obtains primacy for the 2024 PFAS NPDWR, the EPA will
no longer be authorized to issue MCL
[[Page 29438]]
exemptions for PWSs in that state. Therefore, if the EPA finalizes and
issues the proposed MCL exemptions before a state obtains primacy, and
the state wishes to continue the federal exemptions after gaining
primacy, then those primacy agencies must incorporate the EPA-issued
exemptions into their adopted state regulations and primacy
applications. States may also decide not to allow the federal
exemptions to continue after obtaining primacy, as states can choose to
be more stringent. As such, the EPA encourages states to notify their
water systems whether they plan to allow the proposed federal
exemptions to continue after gaining primacy for the 2024 PFAS NPDWR.
Additionally, some state laws may prohibit exemptions from drinking
water requirements for PWSs; in those states, the EPA's proposed
exemptions would have no effect, regardless of whether the state has
primacy. Further, a state does not need to have primacy for the
Variance and Exemption regulation (40 CFR part 142 subpart C) to
continue to allow the proposed federal MCL exemptions for PFOA and
PFOS.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section summarizes the Economic Analysis (EA) supporting
document (USEPA, 2025h) for this proposed rulemaking. The EA presented
here, and in the EA supporting document (USEPA, 2025h), fulfills the
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review requirements to
estimate the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The EPA largely relied on the EA conducted for the 2024 PFAS NPDWR
which is described in the Federal Register for the 2024 PFAS NPDWR
(USEPA, 2024b), and the Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
(USEPA, 2024e) and Appendices (USEPA, 2024h). For the estimation of
quantified benefits and costs, the EPA utilized a variant of its
SafeWater modeling platform, the SafeWater Multi-Contaminant Benefit-
Cost (MCBC) model.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The SafeWater MCBC model is described in detail in Chapter 5
of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR EA document (USEPA, 2024e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Baseline
In its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the EPA
characterizes the baseline as a reference point that reflects the world
without the regulation (USEPA, 2024i); this baseline is the starting
point for estimating the potential incremental benefits and costs of
this proposed rule. For this rulemaking, the Agency selected as the
baseline the previously analyzed, Option 1a, found in the Federal
Register for the 2024 PFAS NPDWR finalized in April 2024 because this
action solely focuses on the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS (USEPA, 2024b).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Also see the Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (USEPA, 2024e) and Appendices (USEPA, 2024h) for detailed
information on Option 1a modeling assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For detailed information on the data and assumptions used to
develop the baseline (Option 1a in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR), see the
Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (USEPA, 2024e) and
Appendices (USEPA, 2024h). The EPA made the following adjustments to
the 2024 analysis of Option 1a to facilitate its use as the baseline:
(1) the Agency updated the dollar year for all monetized values from
the 2022 dollars used in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR analysis to 2024 dollars
using the gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflator,\5\ and
(2) the EPA added two additional years to the period of analysis,
resulting in a total of 84 periods, mirroring the two-year exemption to
the compliance schedule under this proposal. As explained earlier in
this section, the EPA is using the estimated total benefits and costs
of Option 1a to characterize the baseline as this action solely focuses
on the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS. The baseline total benefits and costs
will be subtracted from the estimated total benefits and costs for this
proposed rule to determine the incremental impact of moving from the
baseline to SDWA 1416 revised 2024 PFAS NPDWR. The updated baseline
monetized annualized benefits and costs are shown in Exhibit IV-1 of
this preamble. Note these values are discounted at both 3 percent and 7
percent.\6\ In addition to the summary exhibit presented here, see
Table 3-3 in the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule Extending the
Compliance Date for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels
(USEPA, 2025h) for the undiscounted and discounted (both 3 percent and
7 percent) estimated baseline benefits and costs for each of the 84
years in the period of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA used the not seasonally adjusted GDP implicit price
deflator index downloaded from the Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis' Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) website at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RD3A086NBEA, accessed on August 21,
2025, and available in the rulemaking docket EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742.
\6\ At the time the 2024 PFAS NPDWR was finalized, the EPA
followed the OMB's 2023 Circular A-4 guidance (OMB, 2023) on
discounting which indicated the regulatory cost benefit analysis
should use a 2 percent discount rate. Executive Order 14192 now
directs government agencies to use the 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates from OMB's 2003 Circular A-4 guidance (OMB, 2003).
Exhibit IV-1--Baseline Estimated Mean Total Annualized Benefits and
Costs Discounted at 3 and 7 Percent
[In millions of 2024 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate:
$1,626.0................................... $1,478.8
7 Percent Discount Rate:
1,636.6.................................... 968.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The baseline is Option 1a from the Economic Analysis for the Final
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (USEPA, 2024e) and Appendices (USEPA, 2024h). The estimated
values for Option 1a, found in Table 7-2 of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR EA,
were originally discounted at 2 percent, but were updated here from
2022 to 2024 dollars and the period of analysis was extended to 84
years to allow for comparisons with the proposed rule stream of costs
and benefits.
The annualized quantified national expected value baseline cost is
$1,626 million (in 2024 dollars discounted at 3 percent) and $1,636.6
million (in 2024 dollars discounted at 7 percent). These estimates
represent costs for both the PWS and primacy agency. The annualized
baseline quantified benefit estimate is $1,478.8 million at a 3 percent
discount rate and $968.6 million at a 7 percent discount rate. These
quantified benefits reflect the avoided future adverse health outcomes
attributable to PFOA and PFOS reductions and co-removal of additional
[[Page 29439]]
disinfection byproduct (DBP) contaminants due to actions undertaken to
comply with the MCLs for PFOA and PFOS. The quantified benefits are
estimated using a cost-of-illness approach. In the national analysis,
the EPA quantified three PFOA and PFOS related health endpoints:
changes in birth weight, cardiovascular disease, and kidney cancer
(renal cell carcinoma). The Agency's quantified values also represent
reductions in cases of bladder cancer associated with reductions in
DBPs which result from PFOA and PFOS treatment.
The quantified baseline results in Exhibit IV-1 of this preamble
are not representative of all benefits and costs anticipated under the
baseline. Due to occurrence, health, and economic data limitations,
there are several adverse health effects associated with PFOA and PFOS
(and other co-occurring PFAS) exposure and costs associated with
treatment that the EPA could not estimate quantitatively. As part of
the 2024 PFAS rulemaking, the EPA qualitatively discussed additional
adverse health effects, including reproductive effects, such as
decreased fertility; increased high blood pressure in pregnant women;
developmental effects or delays in children, including accelerated
puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; increased risk of some
cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; reduced
ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including
reduced vaccine response; interference with the body's natural
hormones; and increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. With
regard to non-quantified costs, baseline cost estimates may be
underestimated because the EPA could not estimate the impact of the co-
occurrence of other non-regulated PFAS and contaminants that would
reduce the useful life of the filter media used for GAC and/or ion
exchange treatment. In addition, the EPA could not estimate the degree
to which PWSs required to treat would in the future decide to handle
the spent filtration media as hazardous waste.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ During the 2024 rulemaking stakeholders had expressed
concern to the EPA that a hazardous substance designation for
certain PFAS may limit their disposal options for drinking water
treatment residuals (e.g., spent media, concentrated waste streams)
and/or potentially increase costs. The designation of PFOA and PFOS
as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances would not require waste (e.g.,
biosolids, treatment residuals, etc.) to be treated in any
particular fashion, nor disposed of at any specific type of
landfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule
The annualized cost and benefit estimates described in the baseline
represent a stream of values which occur over the 84-year period of
analysis used for the assessment of the regulatory impacts. This rule
proposes to use SDWA 1416 authority to allow all water systems to opt
into a federal exemption by rule that would allow systems to delay
compliance with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs of 4.0 ppt for two years. In
addition, this rule would require systems with PFOA or PFOS monitoring
data at or above 12 ppt to implement two of the regulatorily identified
control measures \8\ during the period of the exemption (effectively
periods 7 and 8 of the periods of analysis, or the two years from April
2029 to April 203(1). In the EPA's benefit-cost model, both the costs
of treating for PFOA and/or PFOS at PWS entry points which exceed the
MCLs, as well as the resultant benefits, measured as a reduction in
medical costs from fewer negative health outcomes, are pushed out two
years. The ``time value of money'' can be understood as the perceived
value of a dollar decreasing as the length of time one must wait to
receive that money increases, given potential inflation and opportunity
costs. When considering the timing of cost outlays and calculating the
present value of a stream of impacts made into the future, which have
been estimated in constant year dollars, the ``time value of money'' is
accounted for by reducing, or discounting, the estimated future
payments so they represent the current value of a dollar. Similarly,
benefit receipts in the future have a lower value to people than
current benefits because of the ``time value of money.'' Because the
proposed rule treatment costs and benefits accrue two years in the
future, these costs and benefits must be discounted two additional
years which results in a decrease in the net present value and
annualized costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Specifically, this
time value differential is accounted for in the analysis by the
application of the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates to the stream
of estimated undiscounted costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Control measures for systems at or above the PFOA or PFOS
threshold of 12 ppt could include two of the following activities
(see section III.D.1.b.i of this preamble for more information):
Certified water filtration pitchers;
Alternative water supplies;
Certified POU/POE devices;
Source water controls;
Public education materials; and/or
Community outreach activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the analysis of this proposed rule, all 2024 PFAS NPDWR Option
1a regulatory requirements remain the same except for the shift in the
MCL compliance date. Therefore, the time profile for the costs
associated with initial administration of the rule, and sampling and
report costs remain the same. Only the cost associated with the
installation and operation of the PFAS treatment technology are delayed
by two years resulting in a reduction in its net present value, which
in turn reduces the estimated annualized cost for this proposed
rulemaking. Likewise, because the estimated benefits from PFOA and PFOS
reductions are dependent on the timing of treatment, all benefits under
this proposed rule are shifted into the future by two years resulting
in a lower net present value and lower annualized benefits estimates.
The EPA also assumes that all systems exceeding either the MCL for PFOA
or PFOS will opt into the proposed exemption process. The two-year
shift in compliance produced by the proposed exemption scenario (apart
from the exemption administrative costs, and the mitigation cost and
impact to health endpoints) would result in cost savings and forgone
benefits. The EPA also (1) developed primacy agency burden hours and
costs associated with reading and understanding the regulatory changes,
developing and participating in trainings, and conducting oversight;
(2) estimated PWS burden hours and costs associated with reading and
understanding the rule, participating in trainings, reviewing PFOA and
PFOS sampling data, planning and opting into the exemption program,
updating systems' CCRs and issuing exemption PNs; and (3) estimated PWS
(with PFOA or PFOS monitoring samples of 12 ppt or above) costs
associated with implementing control measures for the two years covered
by the exemption. The Agency assumed for costing purposes that all
systems implementing control measures would conduct public education
and make pitcher filters available to customers. These two control
measures are the most likely to be selected by implementing PWSs (apart
from system specific circumstances that the EPA has insufficient data
to characterize nationally), because they represent the least cost
alternatives and are administratively the least complex. As part of the
assessment of public education and pitcher filter costs, the EPA used
data inputs from the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) EA
(USEPA, 2024j). The LCRI rulemaking required similar public education
[[Page 29440]]
activities and pitcher filter programs under some of the regulatory
scenarios covered in the rulemaking. For additional detailed
information on the unit cost information the EPA used in the analysis
of this proposed rule, see the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule
Extending the Compliance Date for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant
Levels, Chapter 5 (USEPA, 2025h).
Because of a lack of national level data regarding the
effectiveness of public education activities geared towards the
prevention of PFAS exposure, the EPA is not able to quantitatively
assess the degree to which this control measure requirement would
reduce the potential forgone benefits associated with the two-year
exemption delay at PWSs exceeding either the MCLs for PFOA or PFOS. In
the case of making pitcher filters available to customers during the
two years of the exemption, the EPA was able to estimate a reduction in
forgone benefits by relying on two assumptions which in large part
drive the estimated results. In the absence of specific data, the EPA
used the estimated 20 percent pitcher filter customer use rate from the
LCRI EA (USEPA, 2024j), which implicitly assumes drinking water
customers are equally concerned about the exposure effects from PFAS
and lead. Also, in order to estimate the reduction in drinking water
PFOA and PFOS at households, the EPA assumed that 100 percent of
drinking water at households using pitcher filters would not exceed 20
ppt of PFOA and/or PFOS.\9\ Given the 20 ppt threshold assumption,
pitcher filter control measure benefits may be underestimated. The
directional impact from utilizing the 20 percent pitcher filter
customer use rate is less clear. Because the EPA lacks PFAS specific
information of pitcher filter use rates, the 20 percent assumption
pulled from the LCRI EA (USEPA, 2024j) could be an over- or under-
estimate of the pitcher filter use rate in the case of PFAS and
therefore using the 20 percent value may result in either an under- or
over-estimate of the mitigation benefits. For additional detailed
information on the benefits data the EPA used in the analysis of this
proposal, see the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule Extending the
Compliance Date for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels,
Chapter 6 (USEPA, 2025h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This limit on PFAS exposure comes from the 2022 updated NSF/
ANSI Standard 53. Although the proposed rule allows for the use of
certified pitchers meeting either the 2022 or 2019 NSF/ANSI Standard
53 maximum PFAS levels of 20 ppt or 70 ppt, respectively, the EPA
selected the 20 ppt value for the benefits modeling exercise based
on a number of factors discussed in section III.D.1.b.i ``Water
Filtration Pitchers'' of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quantified incremental national estimated annualized costs and
benefits under this proposed rule are shown in Exhibit IV-2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In addition to the summary exhibit presented here, see
Table 3-3 in the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule Extending
the Compliance Date for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels
(USEPA, 2025h) for the undiscounted and both 3 percent and 7 percent
discounted estimated total and incremental benefits and costs for
each of the 84 years in the period of analysis. See Exhibit IV-1 of
this preamble for information about how the baseline estimated mean
total annualized benefits and costs were calculated.
Exhibit IV-2: Estimated Mean Total Annualized Benefits and Costs for the Baseline and Proposed Rule and the
Incremental Cost Savings and Forgone Benefits of the Proposed Rule [In millions of 2024 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Proposed Rule Incremental Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgone
Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost savings benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate:
$1,626.0.............................. $1,478.8 $1,535.8 $1,399.6 $90.2 $79.3
7 Percent Discount Rate:
1,636.6............................... 968.6 1,448.4 862.9 188.2 105.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Discounted incremental cost savings are calculated by subtracting undiscounted proposed rule costs from
undiscounted baseline costs in each of the 84 periods in the analysis. These undiscounted incremental values
are then discounted at 3 percent or 7 percent to obtain the net present value of the cost savings, which is
then annualized using the same respective discount rates. Discounted incremental forgone benefits are
estimated using the same methodology as described for cost savings. Undiscounted benefits of the proposed rule
are subtracted from the undiscounted baseline benefits in each period of the analysis providing the stream of
undiscounted forgone benefits. The EPA then calculated the net present value and annualized that present value
over the period of analysis using the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates respectively.
The expected quantified annualized costs savings resulting from the
implementation of this proposed rule is $90.2 million, in 2024 dollars,
discounted at 3 percent, and $188.2 million discounted at 7 percent.
The estimated quantified forgone benefits are $79.3 million (discounted
at 3 percent), and $105.7 million (discounted at 7 percent). The same
level of health protection from PFOA and PFOS and co-occurring DBPs is
reached when compared to the baseline; however, because of the two-year
delay in achieving the health protection, which is only partially
offset by the quantified control measure requirements, the net present
value of the health improvements is lower, reducing the calculated
annualized value.
As discussed in the regulatory baseline section (the 2024 PFAS
NPDWR Option 1a), the Agency cannot say with certainty the degree to
which the nonquantifiable health endpoint benefits may decrease as a
result of this action. Likewise, the Agency cannot say with certainty
the degree to which the non-quantified PWS filter media disposal costs
would decrease.
In addition to the sources of uncertainty affecting the baseline
and the benefit and cost estimates which are discussed in detail in
sections 4.5, 5.1.2, 5.7, 6.1.2, and 6.8 of the 2024 PFAS NPDWR EA
document (USEPA, 2024e), seven additional sources of uncertainty should
be considered as part of a review of SDWA 1416 exemptions proposed rule
quantified impacts. These are:
1. The EPA assumes that 100 percent of systems with MCL exceedances
opt into the exemption process. Although this assumption overestimates
the number of systems opting into the exemption process, the system-
specific nature of this decision (being based on treatment in place,
capital management planning, financial projections, availability of
technology venders, PFOA and PFOS occurrence, and customer preference)
and the lack of data prevents the Agency from making a reliable
national level estimate as to the number of systems opting into the
exemption process. Therefore, the EPA
[[Page 29441]]
relied on economic theory in assuming that systems, like other firms,
make decisions based on cost minimization,\11\ but some systems may
still choose to implement treatment on a faster than required schedule.
Some systems may install treatment prior to April 2029 because of the
public health protection provided by PFAS treatment, customer concerns,
state regulations, or other system specific factors. Therefore, the
EPA's estimated cost savings and forgone benefits for this action would
be overestimated. Additionally, some systems, particularly larger
systems considering pitcher filters for exemption mitigation, may also
find control measure requirements to be more costly than implementing
the long-term treatment option, again resulting in the overestimation
of cost savings and forgone benefits for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Both privately and publicly owned water systems make
production decisions based on cost minimization in the short term.
For privately owned systems, neo-classical economic theory
stipulates that firms are profit maximizers, returning the largest
possible profit to the firm's shareholders (See Smith, 1776; Walras,
1874; and Friedman, 1970). Samuelson in Foundations of Economic
Analysis (Samuelson, 1947) argues that to maximize profits, firms
must produce a given level of output at the lowest cost possible.
Although privately owned water systems may have a stronger incentive
to reduce costs in the short and long run (Shleifer, 1998),
municipally owned water systems also operate under cost minimization
in the short term. Municipal water systems are constrained in the
short run by budget and competing municipal service priorities.
Note, state level tax and expenditure limits as well as other local
priorities limit a municipality's ability to raise funds in the
short term (National League of Cities, 202(1). Therefore, it is
reasonable, in the short run, to characterize water systems as being
cost minimizers with the goal of achieving regulatorily required
standards of service given a budget constraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The EPA assumes that treatment technology effectiveness and the
cost of implementing treatment technology remain constant over the
period covered by the exemptions. By allowing more time through the
exemptions, the EPA expects that emerging technologies will become
better understood and may become more widely available, improving
average treatment efficacy and potentially lowering implementation and
operations and maintenance costs. Because the EPA is unable to develop
new technology implementation unit cost and efficacy estimates, the
calculated cost savings may be underestimated.
3. There may be uncertainty in the estimated number of systems with
PFOA and PFOS levels at or above 12 ppt triggering the proposed rule
requirement for PFAS control measures during the period of the
exemption. This may result in either an under- or over-estimate of the
proposed rule's cost savings and forgone benefits.
4. The choice of public education and pitcher filters is assumed
for all systems required to conduct control measures. This assumption
could result in under- or over-estimates of both cost savings and
forgone benefits.
5. The Agency could not provide an estimate of the effectiveness of
public education activities in reducing PFAS exposure, underestimating
control measure benefits which results in an overestimate of forgone
benefits for the proposed rule.
6. The assumption that 20 percent of drinking water system
customers will utilize PWS provided pitcher filters for 100 percent of
their drinking water needs at home (rates which could be affected by
public education control measures), could result in under- or over-
estimates in the costs and benefits of the control measure requirements
and likewise result in either an under- or over-estimate of total rule
cost savings \12\ or total rule forgone benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to characterize
how cost savings might change as a result of changes to the assumed
percentage of drinking water system customers utilizing pitcher
filters in systems implementing mitigation measures. If the EPA
assumes that 50 percent of customers use pitcher filters, instead of
20 percent, the estimated annualized costs to PWSs for pitcher
filter distribution and program management will increase from $6.5
million, at the three percent discount rate, and $11.3 million, at
the 7 percent discount rate, to $16.1 million, at the three percent
discount rate, and $27.9 million at the 7 percent discount rate, in
2024 dollars. Estimated annualized total cost savings from the
exemption rule requirements would decrease to $80.6 million, at the
three percent discount rate, and $177.5 million at the 7 percent
discount rate, in 2024 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The EPA assumes that when pitcher filters are used in households
as a control measure, they only achieve a reduction in PFOA and PFOS to
20 ppt (the 2022 NSF/ANSI Standard 53 limit for PFOA and PFOS). For
systems using devices certified under the 2022 NSF/ANSI Standard,
assuming a fixed reduction level may underestimate mitigation benefits.
The 2022 total PFAS reduction Standard 53 sets a combined limit of 20
ppt for seven PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume PFOA and PFOS concentrations in filtered water
will be below 20 ppt considering the other five PFAS as part of the
combined limit. The EPA is also allowing the use of pitcher filters
that have been certified under the older NSF/ANSI standard requiring
PFOA and PFOS to 70 ppt. The EPA believes that even for these filters,
the majority will reduce concentrations to below 20 ppt in most cases.
This is because pitcher filters have been found to be generally
effective in removing PFOA and PFOS, often with removal efficiencies
greater than 50 percent and as high as 99+ percent in some cases
(Herkert et al., 2020; Mulhern et al., 2021; Teymoorian et al., 2024;
and Zar[eogon]bska et al., 2025). Based on the EPA's 2024 occurrence
analyses supporting the EA, and the UCMR 5 data reported through
October 2025, the vast majority of PWS samples exceeding 4.0 ppt are
below 40 ppt. Hence, even a pitcher filter with only 50 percent average
removal efficiency will reduce water consumed to below 20 ppt in most
cases. Therefore, assuming that filters reduce PFOA and PFOS only to 20
ppt may understate the protection they actually provide for the
majority of time they are used as a short-term control measure and, in
turn, may underestimate the control measure benefits under the proposed
rule. The EPA requests the submission of additional data and comment on
these six new sources of uncertainty, particularly the cost and
treatment effectiveness of pitcher filters used to reduce PFAS
exposures.
The EPA concludes that the proposed rule should yield annualized
cost savings of $90.2 million with forgone benefits of $79.3 million,
when discounted at 3 percent, and yield cost savings of $188.2 million
with forgone benefits of $105.7 million, when discounted at 7 percent.
The EPA also acknowledges that a number of the long-term forgone
benefits of increased PFAS exposure--such as premature mortality,
higher medical expenses, lost productivity due to illness, and other
reductions in welfare (measured in willingness-to-pay) which are linked
to developmental and reproductive toxicity, immune system suppression,
liver damage, thyroid disruption, and elevated risk of cancers--remain
unquantified.\13\ The EPA estimated cost savings also do not account
for the potential reduction in used filter media disposal costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For a more detailed list of nonquantifiable benefits
associated with PFAS removal see Section 6.2.4 of the Economic
Analysis for the Final Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (USEPA, 2024e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Public Participation
A. Request for Comment on the Proposed Rule
The EPA seeks public comment on this proposal that provides
additional compliance time meet the PFOA and PFOS MCLs for exempted
systems. Specifically, the EPA seeks public comment and data on:
The proposed national PFOA and PFOS exemption framework
and the Agency's use of authority under SDWA 1416 in this streamlined
fashion.
[[Page 29442]]
The proposed compelling factors, other unidentified
factors, and supporting information the Agency should consider when
evaluating SDWA 1416(a)(1) exemption criteria.
If there are any other levels, aside from 12 ppt PFOA or
PFOS, the Agency should consider when evaluating SDWA 1416(a)(3)
exemption criteria.
Whether the risk to human health that may occur due to
exposure to PFOA or PFOS at levels less than 12 ppt, over a limited
period of time, is unreasonable.
The suitability of the six control measures identified
that systems at or exceeding 12 ppt for PFOA or PFOS must select and
implement during the exemption period from April 26, 2029, through
April 26, 2031. The control measures include providing water pitchers
and filters certified to reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations,
delivering alternative water supplies with lower levels of PFOA and
PFOS, installing and maintaining POU or POE devices certified to
decrease PFOA and PFOS concentrations, implementing actions and plans
to decrease PFOA and PFOS levels in sources of drinking water,
distributing written public education materials to consumers on PFAS
exposure sources, and conducting community educational outreach
activities on PFAS in drinking water, as described in section
III.D.1.b.i of this preamble.
For PWSs selecting POU or POE devices as a control measure
requirement, whether the requirements of 40 CFR 142.62(h) should apply.
The proposed Tier 3 PN designation of operating under an
exemption of the PFOA and PFOS MCLs and whether a Tier 2 notice should
be required.
Additional information that should be included in the Tier
3 PN of PFOA and PFOS MCL exemptions aside from requirements already
specified under section III.D.1.b.ii of this preamble.
The proposed estimated cost savings and forgone benefits
from the EA for this action, including SDWA 1416 exemptions proposal,
and possible alternative provisions, for example, other PFOA or PFOS
reduction control measures.
Additional data and comment on the seven additional
proposed rule specific sources of uncertainty for this rule's
quantified impacts, as described in section IV.B of this preamble. The
EPA would particularly appreciate public comment on the cost and
treatment effectiveness of pitcher filters used to reduce PFAS
exposures. The Agency also asks for comment and relevant data on the
assumption, used in the EA, that 20 percent of drinking water system
customers would choose to use pitcher filters during the two-year
exemption period.
The assumption used in the EA that all systems exceeding
either the MCL for PFOA or PFOS will opt into the proposed exemption
process when the relative cost of required mitigation measures
(required only for those systems with PFOA or PFOS sample results at or
above 12 ppt) and other policy concerns could prompt systems to install
long-term compliance technology ahead of required deadlines.
The anticipated Paperwork Reduction Act burdens associated
with this rulemaking.
B. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-
1742, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to the
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.
C. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
The EPA will hold a public hearing on July 7, 2026, to receive
public comment and present on the proposed rule. The hearing will be
held virtually from approximately 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. eastern time,
or at the conclusion of public testimony, whichever is sooner. The EPA
will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of
this document in the Federal Register. To attend and register to speak
at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form
available at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be July 1, 2026. On July 6, 2026, the EPA will post a
general agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers
in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule. The number of online connections
available for the hearing is limited and will be offered on a first-
come, first-served basis. To submit visual aids to support your oral
comment, please contact [email protected] for guidelines and
instructions. Registration will remain open for the duration of the
hearing itself for those wishing to provide oral comment during
unscheduled testimony; however, early registration is strongly
encouraged to ensure proper accommodations and adequate timing.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Please
note that the public hearing may close early if there are no more
people awaiting the opportunity to provide comment.
The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of
their oral testimony electronically by submitting it to the public
docket. Oral comments will be time limited to allow for maximum
participation, which may result in the full statement not being heard.
Therefore, the EPA also recommends submitting the text of your oral
comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are
posted online at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule. While the EPA expects the hearing to go
forward as set forth earlier in this section, please monitor our
website at: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not
intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
updates.
If you require any accommodations such as language translation,
captioning, or other special accommodations for the day of the hearing,
please indicate this as part of your registration and describe your
needs by June 30, 2026. The EPA may not be able to arrange
[[Page 29443]]
accommodations without advance notice. Please contact [email protected]
with any questions related to the public hearing.
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action was determined by OMB to be a significant regulatory
action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with this action. This analysis, Economic Analysis for the Proposed
Rule Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum
Contaminant Levels (USEPA, 2025h) is available in the docket and
discussed in section IV of this preamble.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory
action. The expected quantified annualized cost savings is $189
million, in 2024 dollars, at a 7 percent discount rate and an in-
perpetuity time horizon. Details on the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action, see Chapter 4 and Appendix A
Table A-1 of the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule on Extending
the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant
Levels (USEPA, 2025h).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities for this proposed rule will
be submitted for final approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) submission is dependent on the requirements of
the final rule promulgation. The EPA developed an ICR document for this
proposal, assigned the EPA ICR number 7817.01. You can find a copy of
the ICR in the docket for this rulemaking; it is also summarized here.
Section 7.3 of the EA provides information on the proposed rule
collection.
The proposed rule ICR being considered would cover information
collection burden and cost associated with the existing 2024 Final PFAS
NPDWR ICR (OMB control number 2040-0307, the EPA ICR #: 2732.02), as
modified by the proposed rescission rule (Rescission of Regulatory
Determinations and Removal of Related Provisions for Four PFAS
Substances (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the mixture of these three
PFAS plus PFBS) (EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654; the EPA ICR #: 7818.01) and this
proposed national exemption framework for the three year period from
April 2026 to April 2029, or until such time as the burden and costs
from the proposed rule are added to the total operational burden and
cost of the national drinking water program under the Information
Collection Request for the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts,
Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules (OMB control number 2040-0204) and
the Information Collection Request for the Public Water System
Supervision Program (OMB control number 2040-0090). The EPA notes that
a portion of the burden and cost estimates reported under this ICR,
specifically compliance monitoring burden and costs, are also reported
in the ICR for the Rescission of Regulatory Determinations and Removal
of Related Provisions for Four PFAS Substances (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA
(GenX), and the mixture of these three PFAS plus PFBS) (EPA-HQ-OW-2025-
0654; the EPA ICR #: 7818.01) because each of these actions modifies
the same underlying rule (i.e., the 2024 Final PFAS NPDWR) and covers
the same three years after promulgation (i.e., April 2026 to April
2029). If the EPA takes final action in both rulemaking efforts, the
Agency will prepare and submit a unified final rule ICR under one of
the collections established for the proposed rules (either the EPA ICR
#7817.01 or 7818.01) covering the final regulatory requirements that
will be applied to the respondents in the three years following the
final rules' promulgation, as applicable. This information collection
does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are PWSs and primacy agencies.
Respondent's obligation to respond: The collection requirements are
mandatory under SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300g-7). Under this proposed rule,
pursuant to SDWA 1416(f) and 1450(a)(1), the EPA is proposing an
``exemption by rule'' for systems in states that have not obtained
primacy for 40 CFR part 141 subpart Z under which eligible systems may
request and obtain a two-year federal exemption from the requirements
related to the PFOA and PFOS MCLs until April 26, 2031. Water systems
are only subject to the conditions of the exemption if they request it
to be granted.
Estimated number of respondents: For the first three years after
publication of the rule, information requirements apply to an average
of 22,233 respondents annually, including 22,177 PWSs and 56 primacy
agencies.
Frequency of response: Varies. Details can be found in the ICR for
the proposed rule and Chapter 4 of the EA.
Estimated burden: 330,265 hours (per year) on average. Of these
hours, 91,454 hours (per year) are attributed solely to the new
requirements imposed by this proposal. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $89.3 million per year (simple average over
three years), of which $14.8 million, for an average of $4.9 million
per year (simple average over three years) is attributed solely to the
new requirements of this proposal.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's OIRA using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently
under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. OMB must receive comments no later than June 22, 2026.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of
concern for this proposed rule is any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it has no new net burden
on the small entities subject to the rule. The proposed rule
[[Page 29444]]
extends the existing PFOA and PFOS MCL compliance deadlines and this
allowance of additional time to meet the PFOA and PFOS MCLs may, in
fact, relieve regulatory burden if systems are able to make more cost-
effective decisions or reduce concentrations of these PFAS such that
the costs of drinking water treatment are defrayed in part or whole.
For small systems that decide not to take the exemption there will be
no cost increase as a result of this rule. Although water systems are
not required to seek SDWA 1416 exemption, for those water systems that
do request the exemption there will be an increase in administrative
costs; however, this increase in costs will be minimal and more than
offset by the cost savings to the system of delayed implementation
associated with the installation of the compliance technology,
resulting in an overall cost savings to small PWSs participating in the
exemption. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule
can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action (section IV of this preamble). The
estimated annualized total cost savings for small PWSs, defined under
SDWA as those serving 10,000 or fewer persons, is estimated to be $15.7
million at the 3 percent discount rate and $32.2 million at the 7
percent discount rate, in 2024 dollars. These estimated small system
savings represent approximately 17.1 percent (at the 7 percent discount
rate) to 17.4 percent (at the 3 percent discount rate) of total
proposed rule estimated annualized savings. The EPA has therefore
concluded that this action will have no net, or possibly relieve,
regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any
state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The proposed actions will not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Tribes, change the relationship between
the Federal Government and Tribes, or affect the power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The
proposed actions only seek to extend the compliance timeframe for the
PFOA and PFOS MCLs and the compliance requirements in this proposed
rulemaking are not different than those promulgated for PFOA and PFOS
in the 2024 PFAS NPDWR. Water systems are only subject to the
conditions of the exemption if they request it to be granted.
Additionally, Tribes assuming primacy may choose not to allow the
federal exemption and/or elect to issue exemptions under their SDWA
1416 authority. Thus, there is no new burden on Tribes or Tribal
governments, and Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not disproportionally diminish
protections for children's health. The proposed rule discussed in this
document strictly deals with providing more time to comply with the
PFOA and PFOS MCL standards; the underlying MCLs and health-based MCLGs
remain unchanged. This exemptions proposal, which requires eligible
systems at or above a concentration threshold of 12 ppt each for PFOA
and PFOS to implement control measures, ensures that the exemption will
not result in an URTH over the two-year period. This action is also not
subject to the EPA's Policy on Children's Health for these same
reasons.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The public and private water systems
affected by this action do not, as a rule, generate power. This action
does not regulate any aspect of energy distribution as the water
systems that are proposed to be impacted by this rule already have
electrical service.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards utilized in regulatory and
procurement activities. Since this rule is procedural and does not
establish or involve technical standards, NTTAA requirements are not
triggered.
K. Consultations With the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC)
In accordance with SDWA 1412(d), ``the Administrator shall consult
with . . . the National Drinking Water Advisory Council'' prior to
proposing and promulgating a regulation under SDWA 1412. Consultation
with the NDWAC is not required because this rule is being promulgated
under SDWA 1416. Nonetheless, in order to solicit input to inform its
decision, the Agency consulted with the NDWAC during the Council's July
28, 2025, virtual meeting. A summary of the NDWAC recommendations is
available in the docket for this proposed rule (USEPA, 2025i).
VII. References
4Patriots. 2024. Substance Reduction Test Report: Detailed
performance and contaminant reduction data for the Patriot
Pure[supreg] NanomeshTM Water Filter. IAPMO R&T
Laboratory. Nashville, TN. Available at: https://cdn.4patriots.com/downloads/pdf/lab-results/Nanomesh-Lab-Report.pdf.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2021.
Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. Available at: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf.
Alameddine, M., Liu, Z., Sauv[eacute], S., and Barbeau, B. 2025.
Comparative Assessment of Powdered versus Granular Activated Carbon
for PFAS Removal in Drinking Water Treatment Plants. ACS ES&T Water,
5(2), 851-861. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00901.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2023. WITAF 56 Technical
Memorandum: PFAS National Cost Model Report (B&V Project NO.
409850). American Water Works Association & Black & Veatch.
Available at: https://www.awwa.org/wp-content/uploads/
[[Page 29445]]
WITAF-56-Final-Technical-Memorandum.pdf.
AWWA. 2025. State of the Water Industry Report. American Water Works
Association. Available at: https://www.awwa.org/state-of-the-water-industry.
Buck, R. C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J. M., Cousins, I.
T., de Voogt, P., Jensen, A. A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S. A., and van
Leeuwen, S. P.J. 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4), 513-541.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. Consolidation
Approach--Step by Step. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/consolidation.htm.
Conder, J. M., Hoke, R. A., De Wolf, W., Russell, M. H., and Buck,
R. C. 2008. Are PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and
comparison with regulatory criteria and persistent lipophilic
compounds. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 995-1003.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es070895g.
Crone, B. C., Speth, T. F., Wahman, D. G., Smith, S. J., Abulikemu,
G., Kleiner, E. J., and Pressman, J. G. 2019. Occurrence of Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Source Water and Their
Treatment in Drinking Water. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology, 49(24), 2359-2396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1614848.
Domingo, J. L., and Nadal, M. 2019. Human exposure to per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through drinking water: A review
of the recent scientific literature. Environmental Research, 177
(2019):108648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108648.
Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. 2025. Gross domestic product
(implicit price deflator). Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED).
Available at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RD3A086NBEA.
Friedman, M. 1970. A Friedman doctrine--The social responsibility of
business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine,
122-126.
Fromme, H., Tittlemier, S. A., V[ouml]lkel, W., Wilhelm, M., and
Twardella, D. 2009. Perfluorinated compounds--Exposure Assessment
for the General Population in Western Countries. International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 212(3), 239-270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2008.04.007.
Herkert, N. J., Merrill, J., Peters, C., Bollinger, D., Zhang, S.,
Hoff, K., Lee Ferguson, P., Knappe, D. R. U., and Stapleton, H. M.
2020. Assessing the effectiveness of point-of-use residential
drinking water filters for perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(3), 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004.
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2023. Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Technical/Regulatory Guidance.
Available at: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Full-PFAS-Guidance-12.11.2023.pdf.
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. 2025. PFAS Drinking Water
Rule Implementation. Kentucky Division of Water. Presenters: Sarah
Caywood & Jackie Logsdon. Available at: https://eec.ky.gov/Environmental-Protection/Water/Protection/DocsRegForum/02-PFASImplementationUpdate.pdf.
Liu, J., and Mejia Avenda[ntilde]o, S. 2013. Microbial degradation
of polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the environment: A review.
Environment International, 61, 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.08.022.
Mulhern, R., Bynum, N., Liyanapatirana, C., DeStefano, N. J.,
Knappe, D. R., and MacDonald Gibson, J. 2021. Longitudinal
assessment of point[hyphen]of[hyphen]use carbon filters for removal
of per[hyphen]and polyfluoroalkyl substances from private well
water. AWWA Water Science, 3(6), e1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1262.
Nakazawa, Y., Kosaka, K., Yoshida, N., Asami, M., and Matsui, Y.
2023. Long-term removal of perfluoroalkyl substances via activated
carbon process for general advanced treatment purposes. Water
Research, 245, 120559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120559.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2025. Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) [verbar] State Legislation and
Federal Action. Available at: https://www.ncsl.org/environment-and-natural-resources/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.
National League of Cities. 2021. Consequences of State Tax and
Expenditure Limits on Local Services. Available at: https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Preemption-Brief-2-Consequences-of-State-Tax-and-Expenditure-Limits-Brief-1.pdf.
National Rural Water Association (NRWA). 2024. Annual Report.
Available at: https://nrwa.org/annual-report/.
NSF. 2024. Forever Chemicals and the Advancement of Filtration
Standards. Available at: https://www.nsf.org/knowledge-library/forever-chemicals-advancement-filtration-standards.
National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA). 2025. NUCA
Statement on Increased Steel and Aluminum Tariffs. Fairfax, VA.
Available at: https://nuca.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Media-Statement-Tariffs-on-Critical-Infrastructure-2-12-25.pdf.
OMB. 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC: OMB.
Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
OMB. 2023. Circular No. A-4. Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC:
OMB. Available at: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf.
Reuters. 2025. The top sources of U.S. steel and aluminium imports.
Available at: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/where-does-us-get-its-steel-aluminum-2025-02-10/.
Samuelson, P.A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Shleifer, Andrei. 1998. State Versus Private Ownership. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 12, no. 4: 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.12.4.133.
Smith, A. 1776. The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature
and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Teymoorian, T., Dinh, Q. T., Barbeau, B., and Sauv[eacute], S. 2024.
Performance of pitcher-type POU filters for the removal of 75 PFAS
from drinking water: comparing different water sources. Frontiers in
Environmental Chemistry, 5, 1376079. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvc.2024.1376079.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2025. Producer
Price Index by Commodity: Machinery and Equipment: Domestic Water
Systems (WPU11411311). Retrieved on August 25, 2025, from the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU11411311.
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
(USDCSC). 2025. Public Water System Settlements. Available at:
https://www.pfaswatersettlement.com/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009.
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3-Final. Federal Register.
74 FR 51850. October 8, 2009.
USEPA. 2012. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. 77
FR 26072. May 2, 2012.
USEPA. 2016. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 4-Final.
Federal Register. 81 FR 81099. November 17, 2016.
USEPA. 2018. Reducing PFAS in Drinking Water with Treatment
Technologies. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-water-treatment-technologies.
USEPA. 2021a. Human Health Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane
Sulfonic Acid (CASRN 375-73-5) and Related Compound Potassium
Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (CASRN 29420-49-3). EPA/600/R-20/345F.
Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=350888.
USEPA. 2021b. Human Health Toxicity Values for Hexafluoropropylene
Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid and Its Ammonium Salt (CASRN 13252-13-6 and
CASRN 62037-80-3). Also Known as ``GenX Chemicals.'' EPA-822R-21/
010. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/genx-chemicals-toxicity-assessment_tech-edited_oct-21-508.pdf.
USEPA. 2021c. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR 5) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public
Meetings. Federal Register. 86 FR 73131. December 27, 2021.
USEPA. 2021d. Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for
Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List.
[[Page 29446]]
Federal Register. 86 FR 12272. March 3, 2021.
USEPA. 2023a. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Rulemaking. Federal Register. 88 FR 18638. March 29, 2023.
USEPA. 2023b. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances/Powdered Activated
Carbon: Contaminant Process Navigation. Drinking Water Treatability
Database (TDB). Available at: https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/contaminantprocess?treatmentProcId=2109700949&id=11020&treatmentName=Powdered%20Activated%20Carbon&contProcId=14370.
USEPA. 2024a. Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas.
USEPA. 2024b. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
Federal Register. 89 FR 32532. April 26, 2024.
USEPA. 2024c. Final: Human Health Toxicity Assessment for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Related Salts. EPA-815-R-24-006.
USEPA. 2024d. Final: Human Health Toxicity Assessment for
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Related Salts. EPA-815-R-
24-007.
USEPA. 2024e. Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation. EPA-815-R-24-001.
USEPA. 2024f. Best Available Technologies and Small System
Compliance Technologies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
(PFAS) in Drinking Water. EPA-815-R-24-011.
USEPA. 2024g. Responses to Public Comments on Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation Rulemaking. EPA-815-R-24-005.
USEPA. 2024h. Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation Appendices. EPA-815-R-24-002.
USEPA. 2024i. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (3rd
edition). EPA-240-R-24-001.
USEPA. 2024j. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule
Improvements. EPA-810-R-24-005.
USEPA. 2025a. EPA Announces It Will Keep Maximum Contaminant Levels
for PFOA, PFOS. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-maximum-contaminant-levels-pfoa-pfos.
USEPA. 2025b. Administrator Zeldin Announces Major EPA Actions to
Combat PFAS Contamination. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-announces-major-epa-actions-combat-pfas-contamination.
USEPA. 2025c. Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source
Waters (DWMAPS). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/drinking-water-mapping-application-protect-source-waters-dwmaps.
USEPA. 2025d. Source Water Assessments. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/source-water-assessments.
USEPA. 2025e. Delineate the Source Water Protection Area. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/delineate-source-water-protection-area.
USEPA. 2025f. FITS: Funding Integration Tool for Source Water.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sourcewateprotection/fits.
USEPA. 2025g. Source Water Contacts in EPA's Regional Offices.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/source-water-contacts-epas-regional-offices.
USEPA. 2025h. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Rule Extending the
Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant
Levels. EPA-815-R-25-018.
USEPA. 2025i. National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Virtual Public Meeting--Summary of July 25, 2025, Consultation.
USEPA. 2026. Tackling Emerging Contaminant (TEC) Real Water
Technical Assistance (RealWaterTA): Fact Sheet No. EPA 810-F-26-001.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/tackling-emerging-contaminants-tec-water-technical-assistance-waterta.
United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). 2024.
Persistent Chemicals: Additional EPA Actions Could Help Public Water
Systems Address PFAS in Drinking Water (GAO-24-106523). United
States Government Accountability Office. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106523.pdf.
University of Rhode Island (URI). 2022. Source Water Assessment:
North Kingstown Wellhead Protection Areas. URI Cooperative Extension
NEMO Program for the North Kingstown Water Department. https://www.northkingstownri.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6419/2022-SWAP.
Walras, L. 1874. Elements of Pure Economics. F. Rouge. Lausanne.
Water Quality Association (WQA). 2023. WQA's Comments on Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114. Available at: https://wqa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WQA-Comments-to-Proposed-NPDWR-for-PFAS-Chemicals_-FINAL.pdf.
Zar[eogon]bska, M., Bajkacz, S., Malorna, K., & Torcha[lstrok]a, K.
2025. Effectiveness of pitcher and bottle filters to remove poly-and
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from drinking water. Science of The
Total Environment, 976, 179327.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179327.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Per- and polyfluroalkyl substances, Water
supply.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 142 as follows:
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
0
2. Amend Sec. 142.2 by adding in alphabetical order the definition for
``Pitcher filter'' to read as follows:
Sec. 142.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Pitcher filter means a non-plumbed water filtration device, which
consists of a gravity fed water filtration cartridge and a filtered
drinking water reservoir, that is certified by an American National
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce PFAS in drinking
water.
* * * * *
Subpart F--Exemptions Issued by the Administrator
0
3. Add Sec. Sec. 142.58 and 142.59 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 142.58 Exemptions for PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels
Issued by the Administrator.
(a) Requirements for an exemption eligibility. Any public water
system that submits a request under paragraph (b) of this section, is
located within a State that does not have primary enforcement
responsibility for 40 CFR part 141 subpart Z, was in operation on or
prior to June 25, 2024, and does not have a variance under section
1415(e) of the Act from the requirements of Sec. Sec. 141.61(c)(2)(vi)
and (vii), 141.153(d)(6), and entries I.D.35 and 36 of appendix A to
subpart Q of part 141 is eligible to be exempt from the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 141.61(c)(2)(vi) and (vii), 141.153(d)(6), and entries
I.D.35 and 36 of appendix A to subpart Q of part 141 from April 26,
2029, until April 26, 2031. The requirements in 40 CFR 142.58 (a)
through (c) apply in lieu of the requirements at 40 CFR 142.50 through
142.55 and 142.57 to any two-year exemption from Sec. Sec.
141.61(c)(2)(vi) and (vii), 141.153(d)(6), and entries
[[Page 29447]]
I.D.35 and 36 of appendix A to subpart Q of part 141.
(b) Exemption request. To be covered by a PFAS exemption by rule, a
supplier of water must request the exemption for an eligible public
water system according to paragraph (a) of this section by submitting a
request in writing to a Regional Administrator within 180 days of final
rule promulgation. Any written request for a PFAS exemption shall
include the following information:
(1) System identifying information, including name, PWSID, contact
information, and, if defined as a wholesale system according to 40 CFR
141.2, a list of all consecutive system(s) through which water is
distributed, or if defined as a consecutive systems according to 40 CFR
141.2, a list of the wholesale system(s) providing finished water.
(2) The initial date of system operations.
(3) A statement certified by the owner or operator that the system
cannot comply with the PFOA and PFOS MCLs by April 26, 2029, due to
economic or other compelling factors, that an alternative water source
is not available to meet the PFOA and PFOS MCLs, and the system cannot
reasonably make management changes or restructure to meet the
requirements of the rule.
(4) A statement certified by the owner or operator that the system:
(i) Is taking all practicable steps to meet the standard; and
either
(ii) Cannot meet the standard without capital improvements which
cannot be completed prior to April 26, 2029; or
(iii) In the case of a system which needs financial assistance for
the necessary improvements, the system has entered into an agreement to
obtain such financial assistance, or assistance pursuant to section
1452 of the Act or any other Federal or State program is reasonably
likely to be available within the period of the exemption; or
(iv) Has entered into an enforceable agreement to become a part of
a regional public water system.
(5) Most recent sample result(s) for Sec. 141.61(c)(2)(vi) and
(vii), including the locations, number of samples taken at each
location, dates, and concentrations reported.
(6) For water systems with any result(s) equal to or exceeding 12
ng/l reported pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, a statement
certified by the owner or operator providing the steps the water system
is taking to assure that there is no unreasonable risk to public health
from the PFAS in the water it serves during the period of the
exemption. The statement must include:
(i) Selection of at least two interim control measures listed in
Sec. 142.59; and
(ii) Certification by the owner or operator that the interim
control measures selected under paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section
will be implemented throughout the period of the exemption from April
26, 2029 through April 26, 2031.
(c) Disposition of exemption request and schedule for compliance.
(1) Any exemption request that meets the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section is granted. Any exemption may be terminated upon a
finding by the Regional Administrator that the system has failed to
comply with any requirements of the exemption.
(2) For exemptions granted pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, the schedule for compliance with Sec. Sec. 141.61(c)(2)(vi)
and (vii), 141.153(d)(6), and entries I.D.35 and 36 of appendix A to
subpart Q of part 141 is April 26, 2031.
Sec. 142.59 Control measures for PFAS.
A public water system with any analytical results submitted
according to Sec. 142.58(b)(5) that equal or exceed 12 ng/l shall
implement at least two control measures from paragraphs (a) through (f)
of this section between April 26, 2029 through April 26, 2031, as a
condition of the PFAS exemption granted under Sec. 142.58(c). Each of
the two control measures a water system selects must be available for
all customers. The control measures selected cannot be only paragraphs
(e) and (f) of this section. The control measure options are:
(a) Provide alternative sources of water, including bottled water.
When the alternative source of water is a new water source or blending
of water sources, it must reduce levels of PFOA and PFOS in finished
drinking water. Public water systems providing bottled water as control
measure must meet the requirements of Sec. 142.62(g).
(b) Install, maintain and operate point-of-use or point-of-entry
devices. Public water systems implementing point-of-use or point-of-
entry devices as a control measure must meet the requirements of Sec.
142.62(h).
(c) Provide pitcher filters. Public water systems implementing
pitcher filters as a control measure must ensure the devices are
certified by an ANSI accredited organization or other organization
approved by the primacy agency, to reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations
to an ANSI/NSF standard, or other acceptable criteria as determined by
the primacy agency. Pitcher devices, two years of replacement filters,
and instructions for use shall be made available to consumers upon
request and made available at all drinking water tap locations for non-
transient non-community water systems.
(d) Develop source water controls. Public water systems required to
implement source water controls as a control measure must meet one of
the requirements listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this
section:
(1) The water system must have an agreement with an entity directly
discharging PFOA and PFOS into the source water(s) of the water system
that establishes reduction of PFOA and PFOS discharges.
(2) The source water(s) of the system are subject to regulations
that reduce PFOA and PFOS discharges in the source water(s).
(3) The water system has a source water assessment that identifies
and addresses known and potential non-point and point sources of PFOA
and PFOS.
(4) The water system has funding or technical assistance to
implement source water assessment planning or activities focused on
addressing and reducing PFOA and PFOS.
(e) Provide public education. Public water systems implementing
public education as a control measure must ensure the public education
materials are consistent with the content requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section and are in accordance with the
delivery requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(1) The content of written public education materials must include
the information in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (vi).
(i) Explanation of what PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS are.
(ii) Health effects of PFAS, specifically PFOA and PFOS, including
information for pregnant people, infants, and children.
(iii) Sources of PFAS, specifically PFOA and PFOS, including
drinking water, consumer products, environmental and occupational
factors, and proximity to commercial and industrial sites.
(iv) Consumer steps to reduce PFOA and PFOS exposure from drinking
water and other sources of PFAS.
(v) Levels of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
(vi) What the water system is doing to address PFOA and PFOS in
drinking water.
(2) The timing, format, and delivery method of public education
materials must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii)
of this section:
[[Page 29448]]
(i) Deliver written materials according to the content requirements
of paragraph (e)(1) of this section in a manner and time specified by
Sec. Sec. 141.152 and 141.204(b)(1).
(ii) Contact organizations listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A)
through (E) of this section, who operate within the water system's
service area, to deliver educational materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(A) Local public health agencies.
(B) Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start Programs.
(C) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
(D) Pediatricians.
(E) Obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives.
(f) Conduct community outreach activities. Public water systems
implementing community outreach activities as a control measure must
discuss the PFOA and PFOS sampling results, mitigation steps the system
is taking to reduce PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, steps the system
is taking to achieve MCL compliance, measures consumers can take to
reduce their risk consistent with the content requirement of paragraph
(e)(1)(iv) of this section, and for water systems electing to provide
water filtration pitchers according to paragraph (c) of this section
how to obtain a pitcher filter certified to reduce PFOA and PFOS. The
water system must conduct at least two activities from paragraphs
(f)(1) through (5) of this section by October 26, 2029. The water
system must conduct at least two of the activities in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (5) every six months thereafter until April 26, 2031:
(1) Conduct a public meeting.
(2) Participate in a community event where the system can make
information about ongoing PFOA and PFOS sampling results available to
the public.
(3) Contact customers by phone call or voice message, text message,
email, or door hanger.
(4) Conduct a social media campaign.
0
4. Amend Sec. 142.62 by revising paragraph (h)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 142.62 Variances and exemptions from the maximum contaminant
levels for organic and inorganic chemicals.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(7) In requiring the use of a point-of-entry device as a condition
for granting an exemption from the treatment requirements for lead and
copper under Sec. 141.83 or Sec. 141.84 or the maximum contaminant
level requirements for PFOA and PFOS under Sec. 141.61(c)(2)(vi) and
(vii), the State must be assured that use of the device will not cause
increased corrosion of lead and copper bearing materials located
between the device and the tap that could increase contaminant levels
at the tap.
[FR Doc. 2026-10086 Filed 5-19-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P