Congress is considering legislation that could significantly expand federal regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), particularly in consumer products. If enacted, the legislation could move toward a national framework that partially aligns with and extends beyond certain recent state-level PFAS-in-products programs.
Lawrence Culleen, Brandon Neuschafer, Camille Heyboer, Judah Prero, and Katrina Umstead.Legislation introduced by Senator Durbin — the Forever Chemical Regulation and Accountability Act of 2026 (S. 4153) — together with a House companion bill introduced by Representative McCollum (H.R. 8016), would establish a comprehensive program to phase out so-called “nonessential” uses of PFAS, restrict PFAS releases from manufacturing and use operations, and prioritize remediation of contaminated environmental media. The proposal reflects federal legislative momentum to address what are presumed to be risks associated with PFAS in consumer-use products, while adopting a more structured and expansive approach than increasingly common state PFAS-in-products laws, including those described in our July 2025 Advisory on state PFAS product restrictions.
A central feature of the legislation is its definition of “essential use,” which is limited to uses that are critical to health or societal functioning, necessary for a product or process, and for which no safer alternative is available. The bill would require the National Academies to develop a scientific framework to guide these determinations. It would place the burden on manufacturers and users to demonstrate that a particular use qualifies as essential through a petition process grounded in the “best available science.”
Full Phaseout of Nonessential Uses of PFAS Within 10 Years
Consistent with this framework, the legislation would require a full phaseout of nonessential uses of PFAS within 10 years, supported by national PFAS-in-products reporting and public disclosure requirements. The legislation also includes accelerated restrictions on specified product categories — such as carpets, food packaging, cosmetics, and certain textiles — with prohibitions beginning as early as one year after enactment and expanding over time. These provisions generally track the types of consumer product restrictions increasingly adopted at the state level, but would establish a nationwide baseline with some important differences. The legislation notably does not explicitly preempt state-level restrictions that are more stringent than those applicable at the national level.
At the same time, the legislation goes beyond product-focused regulation by addressing PFAS across their lifecycle. It would establish a federal policy prioritizing the elimination of PFAS releases, the development of destruction and disposal technologies, and the remediation of contaminated environmental media. The bill would ultimately prohibit releases of PFAS above detectable levels within 10 years and direct EPA to establish monitoring methods and phaseout schedules. It also calls for the creation of Centers of Excellence to advance PFAS detection and remediation technologies.
For the industry, the proposal has potentially significant implications, although impacts will vary by sector. Consumer product manufacturers — including those producing textiles, packaging, and cosmetics — would likely face the most immediate compliance obligations due to accelerated phaseouts. By contrast, sectors such as medical devices, semiconductors, and certain automotive applications are not expressly targeted in the early product bans. Still, they could be materially affected by the legislation’s broader “essential use” framework. Uses in these sectors may ultimately qualify as essential in some cases, but would be subject to scientific review, potential time-limited approvals, and ongoing reporting obligations.
Focus on Emissions, Disposal, and Remediation
In addition, the legislation’s focus on emissions, disposal, and remediation could have cross-cutting implications for industrial operations, including manufacturing processes, waste management practices, and legacy contamination. Companies across sectors should anticipate increased scrutiny of PFAS use, enhanced transparency requirements, and continued regulatory pressure to identify and transition to safer alternatives.
If enacted, the legislation would represent a significant step toward a comprehensive federal PFAS regime — one that not only mirrors state restrictions on consumer products, but also introduces a broader, science-based framework for evaluating uses and managing PFAS throughout their lifecycle.
Arnold & Porter 2026 All Rights Reserved. Lawrence E. Culleen is a Senior Counsel in Washington, D.C.; Brandon W. Neuschafer is a Partner in Chicago; Camille Heyboer is a Senior Attorney in Washington, D.C.; Judah Prero is of Counsel in Washington, D.C.; and Katrina R. Umstead is an Associate in Washington, D.C. This article post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation. Visit https://www.arnoldporter.com.
