The Environmental Protection Agency will "soon" move to rescind the Biden-era rule targeting methane leaks from oil-and-gas operations, the agency said.

EPA offered no Federal Register filing date. A rescission typically moves through notice-and-comment rulemaking, with a 60-day comment window for economically significant rules under Executive Order 12866. The agency could instead invoke the "good cause" exception in the Administrative Procedure Act to skip public input — the same procedural shortcut the Biden administration used in late 2023 when it issued the rule.

Environmental litigators are expected to challenge any expedited rescission. Industry groups are simultaneously preparing comments in case EPA takes the conventional path.

What does the Biden-era methane rule cover?

Issued in late 2023, the rule established the first federal performance standards for methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations. It tightened leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements across production, processing, transmission and storage segments and accelerated implementation milestones between 2024 and 2027.

EPA also expanded Subpart W reporting rules, widening mandatory reporting baselines across the petroleum and natural gas systems sector. The framework cross-referenced the methane Waste Emission Charge created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which assesses a fee per ton of methane above defined thresholds starting in 2024.

What is the procedural path to rescission?

A rescission moves through either notice-and-comment rulemaking or a "good cause" direct final rule. Trade regulatory attorneys note that direct final rules on rules of this scope rarely survive challenge. Comment periods on economically significant rulemakings typically run 60 days under EO 12866.

EPA could bundle the methane rescission with companion moves on greenhouse-gas reporting and NSPS OOOOb/OOOOc. Bundling would compress the calendar and consolidate litigation into a single docket.

Which operators have built compliance infrastructure?

Integrated oil and gas producers publicly backed tighter methane standards at issuance, citing technology-forcing design. Each has invested in continuous emissions monitoring, aerial and satellite LDAR pilots, and third-party-verified methane measurement. The American Petroleum Institute filed technical comments endorsing performance-based standards while pushing back on timeline compression.

Independent producers and downstream trade associations argued the rule duplicates state-level programs in Colorado, New Mexico and California and imposes monitoring costs that smaller operators cannot absorb. Both camps now face a period of regulatory limbo until EPA publishes a definitive timeline.

What happens next on the regulatory calendar?

The next concrete milestone is publication of the proposed rescission in the Federal Register. That filing starts the comment clock under either procedural pathway and supplies the administrative record for litigation. Operators in active compliance programs should expect an immediate compliance-hold guidance from EPA and clarified enforcement discretion while the rulemaking proceeds.

The methane Waste Emission Charge survives an EPA rescission because Congress wrote the fee into the Inflation Reduction Act. Operators remain liable to the statutory penalty regardless of any agency rule change, a point underscored by Treasury implementation guidance. Congress would need to amend the IRA to alter the WEC.

Until EPA publishes a timeline, capital plans for LDAR deployment, third-party verification contracts and emissions reporting platforms remain on hold.