June 22, 2026

Oil and Gas NESHAP Proposal Ignores Legal Decision

EPA proposed a technology review and reconsideration for the oil and natural gas production facilities NESHAP (Part 63, Subpart HH) and the natural gas transmission and storage facilities NESHAP (Part 63, Subpart HHH) on April 22, 2026. [91 FR 21672] The proposal includes three primary issues:

1. No revisions are necessary to the current standards for already regulated emission points of currently regulated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The agency states its CAA Section 112(d)(6) [42 U.S.C. Section 7412(d)(6)] technology review did not identify cost-effective developments in reducing emissions since its previous 2012 technology review (77 FR 49490).
2. The second issue contains two alternative proposals. First, EPA proposes it is not obligated to promulgate standards for currently unregulated emission points as part of technology reviews.

Second, new standards would be promulgated for certain emission points not currently regulated, including acid gas removal units, transport vessel loading operations, and pumps.

1. New standards would be set for methanol, a currently unregulated HAP, when emitted from already regulated emission points at crude oil and natural gas production facilities. This portion of the proposal would not extend to the natural gas transmission and storage facilities NESHAP.

No obligation to regulate HAPs?

As mentioned previously, EPA believes it is not obligated to promulgate standards for currently unregulated emission points during technology reviews. The agency states that while it previously accepted the court’s decision in Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) vs. EPA (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Docket No.  17-1257; April 21, 2020), it no longer agrees and believes CAA Section 112(d)(6) only requires the revision of existing standards as necessary. [91 FR 21679] CAA Section 112(d)(6) states:

“The Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.”

The underlying issue in LEAN was whether EPA, during its periodic technology reviews, is required to address all HAPs a source emits or only those HAPs already regulated. LEAN unabiguously requires EPA to set standards for unregulated HAPs during technology reviews:

“There is no dispute that the Act requires EPA to have in place emission standards to control all the listed pollutants that a source category emits, and requires the Agency to revise existing standards that are underinclusive to add section 112(d)(2)-(3) controls for listed but unaddressed pollutants. The only question is whether EPA lawfully may complete a section 112(d)(6) review and “revise” an existing, underinclusive emission standard “as necessary” without supplying the missing controls. Put differently, the issue is whether section 112(d)(6)’s periodic, mandatory review and revision “as necessary” is textually confined to those air toxics already limited under the source’s existing emission standard, or whether that provision compels consideration of the adequacy of the emission standard to control all the air toxics the source category emits.

“We read the statutory text to require EPA during its section 112(d)(6) review to establish any missing limits.”

This disregard is not the first time EPA has ignored LEAN; in 2025, it declined to regulate uncontrolled HAPs in a proposal for the secondary lead smelting NESHAP. [90 FR 47277] The agency errs once again in its logic in pushing forth its deregulatory agenda. Comments on the proposal may be submitted through June 22, 2026 via Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-1348.

 

©2026 McCoy and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. McCoy does not use artificial intelligence (AI) in its writing and publishing.

McCoy and Associates has provided in-depth information to assist environmental professionals with complex compliance issues since 1982. Our seminars and publications are widely trusted by environmental professionals for their consistent quality, clarity, and comprehensiveness.

 

Disclaimer

Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this document; however, McCoy and Associates, Inc. makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with the publication of this information. McCoy and Associates, Inc. expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or regulation with which this information may conflict. McCoy and Associates, Inc. does not undertake any duty to ensure the continued accuracy of this information.

This document addresses issues of a general nature related to the federal environmental regulations. Persons evaluating specific circumstances dealing with the environmental regulations should review state and local laws and regulations, which may be more stringent than federal requirements. In addition, the assistance of a qualified professional should be enlisted to address any site-specific circumstances.