Skip to content

menu

Open Legal Blog Archive logo
HomeAboutBlogsFAQsSubmit

Pause Continues in Litigation Over PFAS MCLs and Hazardous Substances Designation

By Vanessa Pinto on June 12, 2025

EPA has again obtained extensions of the stays in the litigation challenging the MCLs for six PFAS and the litigation challenging the hazardous substance designation for PFOS and PFOA.

EPA requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to grant a 45-day extension in the stay of the litigation challenging six MCLs (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA commonly known as GenX, and PFBS) to determine next steps.  EPA  announced last month that the agency would retain part of the rule while rescinding and reconsidering other aspects of it. On June 6, 2025, the Court granted an extension until July 21, 2025, marking the fourth such stay in these proceedings. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also granted EPA’s request for a 30-day extension in the challenge to the agency’s rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  On May 30, 2025, EPA filed an unopposed motion requesting an additional 30-day stay noting that, “EPA’s new leadership is currently still in the process of reviewing the issues presented in this case, evaluating the Rule within the broader context of EPA’s comprehensive strategy to address PFOA and PFOS, and developing EPA’s position on how to proceed in this litigation.”  The Court granted the extension until July 2, 2025.  As previously reported, this request follows multiple previous extensions: a 60-day abeyance granted in February, a 30-day extension in April, and another 30-day extension in May. 

Stay tuned for further updates.

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

Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. logo
Seattle, Washington
Copyright © 2026, Open Legal Blog Archive, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo