Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

EPA Requests Additional 30-Day Abeyance in PFAS Drinking Water Rule Litigation

By Vanessa Pinto on April 9, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On April 8, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit extend the abeyance in the challenge to EPA’s Final Rule establishing PFAS MCLs. The petitioners and respondent-intervenors do not oppose the request.

This case, which challenges EPA’s PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (89 Fed. Reg. 32532, April 26, 2024), has been in abeyance since February 2025.  At that time, the EPA asked for a 60-day abeyance to allow incoming leadership—appointed under the new presidential administration—to review the contested rule. That pause was set to expire on April 8. 2025.

EPA’s new request seeks an additional 30 days for leadership to continue reviewing the rule and determine its position in the litigation.  As the agency noted in its request, continuing the abeyance would conserve judicial and party resources, and could potentially render further litigation unnecessary.

We’ll continue to monitor the docket for further developments and provide updates as the case progresses—or if the EPA opts to modify the rule following its internal review.

  • Posted in:
    Environmental and Climate
  • Blog:
    PFAS and Emerging Contaminants
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo