13ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mandy M. Gunasekara

MISSION STATEMENT

Creating a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe water, healthy soil,
and thriving communities.
A conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will take a more
supportive role toward local and state efforts, building them up so that they may
lead in a meaningful fashion. This will include the sharing of federal resources andagency expertise. Creating environmental standards from the ground up is consistent with the concept of cooperative federalism embedded within many of theagency’s authorizing statutes and will create earnest relationships among local officials and regulated stakeholders. This in turn will promote a culture of compliance.
A conservative EPA will track success by measured progress as opposed to thecurrent perpetual process and will convey this progress to the public in clear, concise terms. True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative
EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of opensource science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public,
but also trust.
The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to balance justified skepticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Leftfor political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: protecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states. Further, the
EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy
and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role asenvironmental regulator.

— 417 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

OVERVIEWThe Status Quo. Not surprisingly, the EPA under the Biden Administration
has returned to the same top-down, coercive approach that defined the Obama
Administration. There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed
to aid in the “transition” away from politically disfavored industries and technologies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach
is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the
Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas operations very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy tobuild out and rely on unreliable renewables.1 This approach has also been applied
to pesticides and chemicals as the Biden Administration pushes the “greening” ofagriculture and manufacturing among other industrial activities.
As a consequence of this approach, we see the return of costly, job-killing
regulations that serve to depress the economy and grow the bureaucracy but dolittle to address, much less resolve, complex environmental problems. In someinstances, these actions even work to undermine environmental efforts as they
push industries overseas to countries whose enforcement of pollution-control
requirements is seriously deficient—if indeed they have any meaningful requirements at all. Meanwhile, agency costs and staffing have increased significantly.
The EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 request included a 28.8 percent increase in funding and a 13.3 percent increase in staffing, making it the “highest funding ever”
in EPA’s history.2
Compared to the Obama Administration, there is one key difference in the
Biden Administration’s approach: In a concerted effort to diminish congressional oversight, the position of EPA Administrator has been overshadowed by thecreation of multiple “Climate Czars” at the Biden White House. In effect, current
EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who has a reputation as a well-meaning, generally capable former state official, has been left out of the political loop, serving
mostly as a pleasant distraction from EPA’s expansive, costly, and economy-destroying agenda.
A Coopted Mission. The EPA has been a breeding ground for expansion of
the federal government’s influence and control across the economy. Embedded
activists have sought to evade legal restraints in pursuit of a global, climate-themed
agenda, aiming to achieve that agenda by implementing costly policies that otherwise have failed to gain the requisite political traction in Congress. Many EPA
actions in liberal Administrations have simply ignored the will of Congress, aligning instead with the goals and wants of politically connected activists.
Pursuit of this globally focused agenda has distracted the agency from fulfillingits core mission, thereby creating a backlog of missed statutory deadlines,3 andat times has even led to preventable environmental disasters. During the Obama
Administration, for example, the U.S. experienced two of the worst environmental— 418 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

disasters in decades, including the Flint, Michigan, water crisis in 20144 and theGold King Mine spill in 2015.5
Beyond creating such immediate and tangible harm in various communities,
an EPA led by activism and a disregard for the law has generated uncertainty inthe regulated community, vendetta-driven6 enforcement, weighted analytics,
increased costs, and diminished trust in final agency actions. Although the U.S.
environmental story is very positive, there has been a return to fear-based rhetoric
within the agency, especially as it pertains to the perceived threat of climate change.
Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms
reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Leftuses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushingregulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs. In effect, theBiden EPA has once again presented a false choice to the American people: thatthey have to choose between a healthy environment and a strong, growing economy.
Historical Role and Purpose. For many decades, rapid industrial activity
with an unorganized approach to environmental standards significantly degradedthe country’s environment. Particle pollution in the form of a thick, fog-like hazethat at times was laced with harmful metals was a frequent occurrence across thecountry.7 More than 40 percent of communities failed to meet basic water quality
standards, and in 1969, the Cuyahoga River infamously caught fire after sparks
from a passing train ignited debris in the water, which was filled with heavy industrial waste.8
EPA was established on December 2, 1970, following a call by President Richard Nixon to “rationally and systematically” organize existing piecemeal efforts
to clean up and protect the environment.9 Under Reorganization Plan No. 3, theEPA was to initiate a “coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air
we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food.”10 Numerous
authorities were consolidated and given to the EPA including research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities. The mission to protect publichealth and the environment was born, and the first Administrator was sworn inon December 4, 1970.
Congress followed suit with the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)11 andthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.12 The subsequent Clean Air Act
Amendments of 199013 played a significant role in the expansion of EPA’s responsibilities and legal authority with the agency then being tasked with the developmentof new regulatory mechanisms that included, among other things, cap-and-trade
programs for the control of sulfur dioxide and technological standards for nitrogenoxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, a vastly expanded hazardous air
pollutant program, a federal operating permit program, and new regulations governing phaseout of the production of ozone-depleting substances in conjunction
with U.S. ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1988.14— 419 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Subsequently, especially during the Obama Administration, EPA experienced
massive growth as it was used to pursue far-reaching political goals to the point
where its current activities and staffing levels far exceeded its congressional mandates and purpose. This expansive status is entirely unnecessary: It has nothing
to do with improving either the environment or public health. The EPA’s initial
success was driven by clear mandates, a streamlined structure, recognition of thestates’ prominent role, and built-in accountability. Fulfilling the agency’s mission in a manner consistent with a limited-government approach proved to be
extremely effective during the agency’s infancy.
Back to Basics. EPA’s structure and mission should be greatly circumscribedto reflect the principles of cooperative federalism and limited government. This
will require significant restructuring and streamlining of the agency to reflect
the following:
l

l

l

l

l

l

State Leadership. EPA should build earnest relationships with state andlocal officials and assume a more supportive role by sharing resources andexpertise, recognizing that the primary role in making choices about theenvironment belongs to the people who live in it.
Accountable Progress. Regulatory efforts should focus on addressing
tangible environmental problems with practical, cost-beneficial, affordable
solutions to clean up the air, water, and soil, and the results should bemeasured and tracked by simple metrics that are available to the public.
Streamlined Process. Duplicative, wasteful, or superfluous programs that
do not tangibly support the agency’s mission should be eliminated, and astructured management program should be designed to assist state andlocal governments in protecting public health and the environment.
Healthy, Thriving Communities. EPA should consider and reduce asmuch as possible the economic costs of its actions on local communities tohelp them thrive and prosper.
Compliance Before Enforcement. EPA should foster cooperative
relationships with the regulated community, especially small businesses,that encourage compliance over enforcement.
Transparent Science and Regulatory Analysis. EPA should makepublic and take comment on all scientific studies and analyses that support
regulatory decision-making.

— 420 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE AND REORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITYThe Office of the Administrator (AO) is intended to provide executive andlogistical support for the EPA Administrator. Its stated purpose is to support
EPA leadership and activities. To implement policies that are consistent with aconservative EPA, the agency will have to undergo a major reorganization. The
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy position within the Administrator’s office should
be renamed the Deputy Chief of Staff for Regulatory Improvement. This position
would oversee a reorganization effort that includes the following actions:
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Returning the environmental justice function to the AO, eliminating thestand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.
Returning the enforcement and compliance function to the media offices(air, water, land, and emergency management, etc.) and eliminating thestand-alone Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, which has
created a mismatch between standard-setting and implementation.
Using enforcement to ensure compliance, not to achieve
extrastatutory objectives.
Developing a plan for relocating regional offices so that they are
more accessible to the areas they serve and deliver cost savings to theAmerican people.
Restructuring the Office of International and Tribal Affairs into theAmerican Indian Environmental Office and returning the international
liaison function to media offices where appropriate.
Eliminating the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education
as a stand-alone entity and reabsorbing substantive elements into the Officeof Public Affairs.
Relocating the Office of Children’s Health Protection and the Office of Smalland Disadvantaged Business Utilization from the AO and reabsorbing
those functions within the media offices (air, water, land, and emergency
management, etc.).
Reviewing the grants program to ensure that taxpayer funds go toorganizations focused on tangible environmental improvements free frompolitical affiliation.

— 421 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

l

l

l

Resetting science advisory boards to expand opportunities for a diversity ofscientific viewpoints free of potential conflicts of interest.
Restoring the guidance portal to ensure that regulatory and subregulatory
standards are clear to affected entities.
Working with Assistant Administrators to implement major reforms in
media offices.

Day One Executive Order. To initiate the review and reorganization, a Day
One executive order should be drafted for the incoming President with explicit
language requiring reconsideration of the agency’s structure with reference tofulfilling its mission to create a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe
water, healthy soil, and thriving communities. The order should set up “pause andreview” teams to assess the following:
l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Major Rules and Guidance Materials. Identify existing rules to be stayed
and reproposed and initiate rule development in appropriate media offices.
Pending Petitions. Grant new petitions for rule reconsideration andstays of rules.
Grants. Stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential
federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements.
Legal Settlements. Reassess any “sue and settle” cases and develop a
new policy to establish standard review and oversight, including public
notification and participation.
Employee Review. Determine the opportunity to downsize byterminating the newest hires in low-value programs and identify relocation
opportunities for Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
Budget Review. Develop a tiered-down approach to cut costs, reduce thenumber of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and eliminate duplicative
programs. EPA should not conduct any ongoing or planned activity forwhich there is not clear and current congressional authorization, and it
should communicate this shift in the President’s first budget request.
Risk Management Policy. Revise guidance documents that control
regulations such as the social cost of carbon; discount rates; timing of— 422 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

regulatory review (before options are selected); causality of health effects;
low-dose risk estimation (linear no-threshold analysis); and employment
loss analysis.
Personnel

The majority of the political appointee team must be assembled, vetted, andready to deploy before Day One. To the extent provided by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act,15 appointees in consideration for Senate-confirmed positions(excluding the Administrator) should be prepared to serve as a Deputy or Principal
Deputy to get into the agency on Day One while their nomination and affiliatedconfirmation processes proceeds. In addition to a deputy slated for the Assistant
Administrator role, each office will need a political chief of staff, senior advisers
designated to run suboffices, and energized assistants. Teams should be balancedwith technical knowledge, legal expertise, and political exposure. Ideally, theyshould also be geographically diverse. Appointee positions should also extend to
all the regional offices and specialty labs.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)

OAR develops national programs, policies, and regulations to control air
pollution and radiation exposure. In recent decades, OAR and its statutory responsibilities under the Clean Air Act have been reimagined in an attempt to expand
the reach of the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has stopped andstricken several actions from OAR under liberal Administrations, citing a lack ofrequisite legal support. A reformed OAR should focus on EPA’s mission of limiting
and minimizing criteria and hazardous air pollutants in partnership with the states.
Cross-Cutting Reforms. OAR consists of four suboffices with two located in
Washington, D.C.; one in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and one at Research Triangle Parkin Raleigh, North Carolina. The following reforms should be implemented acrossall OAR offices:lllIssue a rule to ensure consistent and transparent consideration of costs.
When doing cost-benefit analysis, use appropriate discount rates, focus
on the benefits of reducing the pollutant targeted by Congress, identify“co-benefits” separately, and acknowledge the uncertainties involved inquantifying benefits.
Review and revise Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
cost guidance to ensure that calculations are accurate and reflect theactual regulatory burden, including costs of air rules implementationand compliance.

— 423 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

l

l

l

l

Obey Congress’s direction in CAA § 32116 to “conduct continuing
evaluations” of the employment and plant-closure effects of air regulations.
Ensure that all provisions of CAA § 307(d)17 are observed. Congress placed
special constraints on air rules, and that intent should be respected.
To the extent that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)18 remains in place,ensure to the maximum extent possible that grants and funding areprovided to state regulatory entities and not to nonprofits.
Remove any regulations or requirements that confer on third parties
any authorities that have been provided to EPA, such as the oil and gas
supplemental, which created a Super-Emitter Response Program thatallows third parties to act as EPA enforcers.

Policy-Specific Actions

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

l

l

l

l

l

EPA adopted by regulation a goal of restoring natural visibility by 2064. The
statute does not require this, and EPA should consider whether a longer
timeline is less disruptive or more realistic. Regional haze rules should be
revised to prevent subsequent “planning periods” from being abused tocompel the shutdown of disfavored facilities.
Under the Good Neighbor Program/Interstate pollutant transport
program, review Biden-era regulations to ensure that they do not“overcontrol” upwind states in violation of the statute as construed by
the U.S. Supreme Court. Reverse the program’s 2022 expansion beyond
power plants.
Putting guardrails on downwind states is an abuse of the CAA § 126(b)19
petition process. EPA must ensure, in keeping with statutory text, that
petitions identify a reasonably discrete “group” of upwind sources alleged toviolate the good neighbor provision.
Ensure that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) considers
all of the statutorily charged factors (for example, social and economic
effects resulting from NAAQS attainment and maintenance strategies).
Ensure that the requirements EPA puts on a state that has achieved
attainment status from nonattainment status are limited to those that

— 424 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between
attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law.
l

l

l

l

Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstratethat their federally funded highway projects will not interfere withNAAQS attainment.
Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction”
authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into
adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP).
Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensurethat it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive
authority elsewhere in the statute.
If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress.
Climate Change

l

l

l

Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source
category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting
program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies
that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-ofDamocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate.
Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009
endangerment finding.
Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs).

Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovationand Manufacturing (AIM) Act22ll

Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act
that are unnecessarily stringent and costly.
Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add
new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants
and equipment.

— 425 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromiselConduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences
instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program isvirtually cost-free.
Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT)
leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security.
Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it isactually achievable.
Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of theirenvironmental impacts.
Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to Californiaspecific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues.
Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only fortraditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases.
Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to
increase standards on airplanes.
Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving
down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on
the industry.

Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Permits) and Title V (Operating Permits)lllDevelop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its
production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered.
Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources
can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met).
Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate
24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential toemit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

— 426 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectllDefend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used tosecond-guess previous state decisions.
Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensurethat Title V is used only as intended by Congress.
CAA Section 11123

l

l

l

Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from analready regulated source category without making predicate findings forthat new pollutant.
Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized
within the statutorily prescribed one-year period.
Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory
authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning toCongress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that thestate planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states.
CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25

l

l

l

Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an alreadyregulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available
Control Technology (MACT) standard.
Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111
regulations that apply to the same sector/sources.
Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted
pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits.
RadiationllAssess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align withthose of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well asinternational standards.
Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk andreassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

— 427 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring
l

l

l

l

Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office ofTransportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) anda political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary
sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority tooversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff.
Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office.
Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish
its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) thatis headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department ofEnergy to work together to establish RFS programs.
Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving
forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement
is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going
beyond them.

OFFICE OF WATER (OW)OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and maintaining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health,support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish,
plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water
Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large
number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, mostnotably with the Waters of the U.S. program.
Needed Reforms

The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heavily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a“deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding
OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something
akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for
Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transparency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form andby also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do
not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did haveany such effect.

— 428 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectAs a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily established deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where
statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made awareof the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative
courses should be taken.
Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as
well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States(WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations
should be pursued.
New Policies

New regulations should include the following:

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” andrespects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop
legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United Statesthat “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent,
standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily
dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30
A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA
Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay forneeded projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach witha limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only
water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, andexcluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm.
A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit.
A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections
40232 and 404.33
A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404.
A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versusstick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance.
A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional
requirements beyond current law.
A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.

— 429 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promisell

An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process
for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. Thisorder would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and theDepartment of the Interior.
Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water
workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, andcybersecurity.

BudgetWhile the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is onevery targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The
Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appropriated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations
that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water andclean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program iscurrently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water
infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would
greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is
crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges.
Personnel

OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different
programs and from headquarters out to regional offices.
OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)

OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local
governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land
for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the environment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also
oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM executes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste
management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources forcleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce
the likelihood of accidental chemical releases.
Needed Reforms

OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA
and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management
more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies— 430 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

can result in more work on the ground in communities where Americans live andwork. OLEM can accomplish this goal by determining the scope of work based onan actual reduction in exposure to chemicals as opposed to the elimination of theoretical potential exposures. To manage cleanups more effectively, OLEM should:
l

l

l

l

Require training in project management for project managers (as opposed
to all staff having a general science background).
Adopt EPA’s Lean Management System (ELMS) across all OLEM programs.
Delegate all CERCLA authority from the Administrator to the OLEM
Assistant Administrator as opposed to a direct delegation to the Regional
Administrators.
Find opportunities to transfer work and funding to states and tribes.

New Policies

Superfund. To execute more efficient and effective cleanups, the followingchanges are needed in the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI):
l

l

l

l

l

l

Revise the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) to modernize and streamline the cleanup process using lessons
learned from the execution of the NCP over the past 40-plus years.
Increase the use of CERCLA removal authority to execute short-termcleanups, which will provide clarity and finality for potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) and return cleaned up land to communities more swiftly.
Streamline the process for determining Applicable or Relevant andAppropriate Requirements based on commonalities across sites as opposed
to making such determinations on a site-by-site basis.
Revise groundwater cleanup regulations and policies to reflect thechallenges of omnipresent contaminants like PFAS.
Revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances”
under CERCLA.
Allow PRPs to perform the statutorily required five-year reviews ofSuperfund cleanups to free OLEM resources.

— 431 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromisellExpand and fully stand up the Office of Mountains, Deserts and Plains to
support innovative approaches to the cleaning up of abandoned mines.
Develop and execute a 10-year cleanup plan to address lead at all existingcleanup sites that includes benchmarks and milestones that allow for
congressional and public oversight of the schedule.

RCRA. To streamline waste management, the following changes are needed in
the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR):
l

l

l

l

Create an RCRA post-closure care permit that is tailored only to postclosure obligations.
Modify regulations that impede resource efficiency, recycling, andreuse by providing clearly that these materials are not waste. This canbe done by promulgating a rule that provides an alternative pathway
to hazardous waste regulation to allow the transport of material tolegitimate recyclers or back to manufacturers to support the recycling
and reuse of material.
Change the electronic manifest (e-manifest) regulations to a 100 percent
electronic system and eliminate all paper manifests and manual filing anddata input. This system should operate from a range of common handheld
devices and could be expanded to accommodate solid waste and materials
for reuse and recycling.
Reassign regulation and enforcement of air emission standards under theauthority of RCRA Section 300437 to OAR and revise and modernize theregulations to comport and integrate with CAA rules.

Risk Management Program. If a new Risk Management Program (RMP) rule
is finalized by the Biden Administration, it should be revised to reflect the amendments finalized in 2019 to protect sensitive information.
Personnel

The following organizational changes could create resource efficiencies to focus
on the highest-value opportunities:lEliminate or consolidate the regional laboratories and allow OLEM to use
EPA, other government, or private labs based on expertise and cost.

— 432 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectllConsolidate non-core functions (communications, economists,
congressional relations, etc.) into one OLEM suboffice to allow the subjectmatter offices to focus on the execution of field work.
Eliminate the Office of Emergency Management and reassign its functions.
1.

Move the emergency management function (currently OEM) into
Homeland Security under the Administrator’s office.

2. Incorporate removal authority (currently OEM) into OSRTI.
3. Retain the oversight and enforcement of the RMP program
within OLEM.
4. Drop “Emergency Management” from OLEM’s name.
BudgetWhile the overall goal is certainly to reduce government scope and spending,
OLEM’s programs present the best opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to execute
EPA’s core mission of cleaning up contamination.
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

OCSPP primarily oversees the regulation of new and existing chemicals under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)38 and the regulation of pesticides under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)39 and Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).40 These activities are managed in two
separate offices within OCSPP: the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT,
chemicals) and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP, pesticides). OCSPP is constantly
pressured to ban the use of certain chemicals, typically based on fear as a result ofmischaracterized or incomplete science.
Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPPT (Chemicals)llEnsure that decision-making is risk-based rather than defaulting toprecautionary, hazard-based approaches like the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
Focus the scope of chemical evaluations on pathways of exposure that are
not covered by other program offices and other environmental statutes, andeliminate scope creep to ensure that evaluations can be completed in atimely manner consistent with the statutory requirements.

— 433 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Ensure that new chemical evaluations are conducted in a timely manner,consistent with statutory requirements, to ensure the competitiveness of
U.S. manufacturers.
For new chemicals, reset the program to ensure that reviews are completed
on a timeline that is consistent with the statute. This includes revising theregulations governing the reviews of new chemicals.
Ensure that risk evaluations and risk management rules presume thatworkplaces are following all OSHA requirements, including requirementsfor personal protective equipment (PPE).
Apply real-world use of chemicals when assessing conditions of use for risk
evaluations.
Transition the Safer Choice program to the private sector.
Right-size the TSCA fee’s rule so that it is consistent with the tasks that theagency is actually completing within the timelines of the statute and is notcovering the costs of EPA inefficiency or overreach.
Revise existing policies to address the requirements of the 2016 Lautenberg
amendments to the TSCA.41
Develop a framework rule for risk management approaches that will be used
under TSCA for existing chemicals.

Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPP (Pesticides)ll

OPP should rely on Department of Agriculture and state usage data thatreflect actual pesticide use in registration reviews and Endangered Species
Act (ESA)42 analyses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service should rely on similar data in their ESA analyses.
OPP has rigorous testing requirements that registrants must meet before
pesticides are allowed on the market. However, when pesticides undergo
registration review every 15 years, EPA relies on publicly available data withdiffering levels of quality and transparency. Data standards are needed toensure that information relied on by EPA is made available to the agency ata similar level as the original testing data conducted by registrants to ensurethat EPA can conduct a robust review and analysis of the data.

— 434 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

l

l

l

ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA
allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective
precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for
any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet
ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers withlimited tools for crop protection.
New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD,
OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous
testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure
before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and theenvironment. Assessments by other offices are redundant.
While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and notreviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn
by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), theseactions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB.

Budget

The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory
actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintainthat resources are insufficient.
OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete
the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has
asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has
the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently.
With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the programis underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions
can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher feesto the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been disappointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to
conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions thatappropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails andthird-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms.
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD)
AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide
variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science,— 435 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promisescience advisory, peer review, risk assessment, and risk management activities. This
enterprise includes the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the agency’s
largest employer, as well as science activities across other key programs, regions,and cross-cutting parts of the Administrator’s office. EPA’s scientific enterprise,
including ORD, has rightly been criticized for decades as precautionary, bloated,unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, andinclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.
Needed Reforms: Day One Priorities
l

l

l

l

l

Notify Congress that EPA will not conduct any ongoing or planned science
activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization.
This priority should be underscored in the President’s first budget request.
The new President’s Inauguration Day regulatory review/freeze directives
should avoid exceptions for EPA actions. This freeze should explicitly
include quasi-regulatory actions, including assessments, determinations,standards, and guidance, that have failed to go through the notice-andcomment process and may date back years.
Pause for review all contracts above $100,000 with a heavy focus on major
external peer reviews and regulatory models.
Call for the public to identify areas where EPA has inconsistently assessedrisk, failed to use the best science, or participated in research misconduct.
Eliminate the use of unauthorized regulatory inputs like the social cost ofcarbon, black box and proprietary models, and unrealistic climate scenarios,
including those based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5.

PersonnelllQuickly nominate a reform-minded Assistant Administrator for Researchand Development.

Appoint and empower a Science Adviser reporting directly to the
Administrator in addition to a substantial investment (no fewer thansix senior political appointees) charged with overseeing and reforming
EPA research and science activities. Qualifications for these positions
should emphasize management, oversight, and execution skills (including
in leading state environmental agencies) as opposed to personalscientific output.

— 436 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

l

l

l

l

Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of whichhave not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, andgeographic and viewpoint diversity.
Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from
Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials.
Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend
millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil
service scale.
Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated andmanaged laboratory structure.

Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorizedor Expired Science Activities

A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA
ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY
2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of
Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramaticincrease for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of
the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer
review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our environmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors.
Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountableefforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal
decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, forexample, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response forcertain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never beenauthorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable scienceand below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program
has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement
meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory
processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation.
Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms

EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees
often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy,— 437 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseand their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain political positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were
purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory andprivate-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to congressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental
associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key committees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a varietyof EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of
economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly
disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees
and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46
Needed Science Policy Reforms

Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen
science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny,
especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research
misconduct. In addition, EPA should:
l

l

l

l

Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of
Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists,
and toward an independent body.
Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under
the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research
misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involvedin expending unnecessary resources.
Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major
EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the
public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public fromunderstanding agency analysis.
Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the faceof uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and healthor welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its
low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk
into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given
the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should
implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.

— 438 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectlRefocus its research activities on accountable real-world examinationsof the efficacy of its regulations with a heavy emphasis on characterizing
and better understanding natural, background, international, andanthropogenic contributions for key pollutants. It should embrace concepts
laid out in the 2018 “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National
Ambient Air Quality Standards” memo48 to ensure that any science and risk
assessment for the NAAQS matches congressional direction.

Legislative Reforms

While some reforms can be achieved administratively (especially in areas where
EPA clearly lacks congressional authorization for its activities), Congress should
prioritize several EPA science activity reforms:
l

l

l

l

l

l

Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA
regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit “substantiallysimilar” actions in the future.
Reform EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory bodies to ensure
independence, balance, transparency, and geographic diversity.
Build on recent bipartisan proposals to increase transparency foradvisory bodies, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act49 as well
as recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the U.S., tostrengthen provisions for independence, accountability, geographic
diversity, turnover, and public participation. This should include aprohibition on peer review activities for unaccountable third parties
that lack independence or application of these same principles to nongovernmental peer review bodies (including NASEM).
Add teeth to long-standing executive orders, memoranda, recommendations,and other policies to require that EPA regulations are based on transparent,
reproducible science as well as that the data and publications resulting from
taxpayer-funded activities are made immediately available to the public.
Reject funds for programs that have not been authorized by Congress(like IRIS) as well as peer review activities that have not been authorized
by Congress.
Revisit and repeal or reform outdated environmental statutes. A highpriority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of
1990,50 which has been misused for political purposes.

— 439 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative PromiselRepeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants forenvironmental science activities.

AMERICAN INDIAN OFFICE (AIO)

AIO is a vital EPA function. It is mandated to carry out a 1992 act of Congressthat administers the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.51 Becauseof the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship between the U.S. government and federally recognized sovereign Indian nations, this act’s purpose is to assist tribes
in developing the capacity to manage their own tribal environmental protection
programs and set them up to implement programs for the management of solidand hazardous waste. This office also is the chief office under which the EPA’s 1984
Indian Policy functions.
Needed Reforms

AIO should be significantly elevated as a stand-alone EPA Assistant Administrator office. This would send a clear message to American Indians and Alaska
Native Villages that the agency takes seriously the environmental issues plaguing
Indian Country. While designated a “headquarters” office with direct reportingto the Administrator, its location should be in the American West, closer to mosttribal nations. This could include Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Dallas, Texas; orDenver, Colorado. The state of Oklahoma is considered the tribal center of America and is home to 39 federally recognized tribes, including the “Five Civilized
Tribes.” The other two options are also close to numerous tribes and home to EPA
regional offices.
New Policies

All EPA tribal grants and tribal matters should be run from this office as a onestop-shop for all tribal affairs.
Budget and Personnel

AIO should be led by a politically appointed, Senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator, ideally one with strong ties to a federally recognized tribe. He or she shouldhave political deputies and staff to assist the political leadership in carrying out
agency policies.
Career EPA tribal staff are located throughout the nation in all regional offices
but are paid mostly under the budget of the current Office of International andTribal Affairs, which will be significantly restructured as international functions
are reabsorbed into the appropriate media offices (for example, Air, Water, andLand and Emergency Management). Because of this, tribal staff should be fully
under the authority of the new American Indian Office and its Assistant Administrator, not the regional offices.

— 440 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)

OGC serves as the chief legal adviser to EPA’s policymaking officials. It also provides legal support to regional actions and enforcement and compliance litigation.
OGC lawyers represent the agency in court alongside the Department of Justice,typically defending agency actions.
Needed Reforms and New PolicieslReview EPA’s Environmental Justice and Title VI authority.
Wherever possible, the Biden Administration is broadening EPA’s use andinterpretation of Environmental Justice (EJ)52 and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 196453 beyond long-standing understandings of the legal limitsof that authority. As a threshold matter, there is an opportunity to redefine
EJ as a tool for the agency to prioritize environmental protection efforts
and assistance to communities in proximity to pollution or with the greatest
need for additional protection. Allocations of agency resources, increased
EPA enforcement, and/or agency distribution of grants should be based on
neutral constitutional principles.

In 2023, the Supreme Court is expected to provide guidance on theconstitutionality of race-based discrimination as it considers Students for
Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.54 Accordingly, the next
Administration should pause and review all ongoing EJ and Title VI actions
to ensure that they are consistent with any forthcoming SCOTUS decision.
lEstablish a policy of legally speaking with one voice. Some EPA offices(for example, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the
Offices of Regional Counsel) assert legal positions and interpretations of
the law that conflict with an Administration’s interpretation as articulatedby OGC with input from program offices. It is unacceptable for the agency
to have inconsistent legal positions, particularly with respect to key
interpretative issues. All attorneys with authority to represent EPA—notnecessarily all attorneys—should therefore be housed in OGC. These
offices include:
1.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
OECA was established during the Clinton Administration. Enforcement
attorneys tend to take legal positions to win cases or obtain settlementsthat may be inconsistent with those of OGC and program offices. OECA
attorneys should be moved into OGC. Additionally, non-attorney
program staff in OECA could be moved into their relevant program
offices (for example, the Clean Air Act Enforcement Advisor could— 441 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

be moved into OAR). Beyond the avoidance of inconsistent legal
positions, this policy would reduce the agency’s overall expendituresand duplication of work. To accommodate this new function, OGC could
establish a new Deputy General Counsel for Enforcement position to
manage the enforcement attorneys at headquarters and in the regions.
2. The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs(OCIR). OCIR employees should not take legal positions. In all
Administrations, White House Counsel is key with respect to oversightissues and has an important relationship with OGC. There must be a
strategic relationship between OCIR and OGC, but OGC, in consultation
with agency clients and White House Counsel, should assert EPA legal
positions to Congress (for example, the assertion of interests regarding
congressional subpoenas, witness availability and testimony, anddocument production).
3. The Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights(OEJECR). OEJECR was established during the Biden Administration.
EJ and civil rights functions were taken from OGC and moved intoa stand-alone office as well as spread through the regions. OEJECR
should be disbanded; OEJECR’s attorneys should be moved back into
OGC; and nonlegal staff (for example, EJ Policy Advisers) should be
moved back into the Administrator’s office as is customary.
4. The Offices of Regional Counsel (ORCs). Regional EJ staff efforts,
both in the ORCs and in the policymaking offices, are highly variable.
EPA is therefore likely to take inconsistent legal positions. To theextent that legal positions are taken by the ORCs and/or regional staff,
they should be coordinated and approved by OGC and the appropriate
regional leadership. For example, nearly all regional offices have EJ
Action Plans and/or EJ Implementation Plans. Region 1’s EJ Action
Plan is six pages, and Region 2’s is 66 pages. The Region 2 EJ Action Plan,for example, specifies that “ORC will conduct EJ training for all legal
staff…to provide attorneys with a simple standard EJ analysis they canuse regardless of the context—enforcement, grants, permits, referrals,
etc.—of the case.”55
In addition, EPA should refrain from publicly undermining the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)56 process at other agencies and should
instead focus on providing constructive, technical support during theinteragency process.

— 442 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

Personnel
l

l

l

l

l

Review OGC resources to consider reorganization of other attorney functions
and leadership for consolidation into a Cross-Cutting Issues Law Office.
Review telework policies and attorneys with permanent duty stations not at
EPA headquarters or a regional office.
Consider invoking the rotation of SES managers within OGC and ORCs toother EPA offices where appropriate.
Monitor all external communications conveying a legal position.
Do not allow public events at which the agency puts forth its legal position
unless they are specifically approved (for example, agency webinars on
sensitive issues).

Budget

OGC’s budget will increase with consolidation of FTE funding that follows attorneys who come from other EPA offices.
ll

Reassess duplicative skill sets with the consolidation and allow for
attrition if needed.
Consider allocated resources for regional recruiting to increase geographic
diversity from law schools from each state.

OFFICE OF MISSION SUPPORT (OMS)

OMS leads the agency’s core mission support functions to improve efficiency,
coordination, and customer experience for internal customers, stakeholders,
and the public, including protection of EPA’s facilities and other critical assets
nationwide, acquisition activities (contracts), grants management, human capital,
information technology, and information management activities.

Grant Reform

EPA now awards up to $30 billion in grants annually—up to half of the agency’s annual budget. Of these funds, $500 million is awarded as discretionary. This
grantmaking—discretionary and otherwise—is driven by ideology instead ofneed. Of particular concern is a practice whereby numerous small-dollar grants
are administered to a great number of grantees while larger grants are given toacademic institutions. As a result, grant funds produce little to no meaningfulimprovements in the environment and public health and instead fund questionably— 443 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

relevant projects at elite, private academic institutions that invariably produce
radical environmental research.
Steps should be taken to ensure that grants are awarded based on need insteadof ideological affiliation or academic preference. Specifically, EPA should:lllInstitute a pause and review for all grants over a certain threshold.
Put a political appointee in charge of the grants office to prioritize
distribution of grants to those who are most in need and toward projects
that will tangibly improve the environment.
Cap the number and dollar amounts of grants that the Office of Researchand Development can award and require that they be reviewed by the
Administrator’s office.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (OCFO)

OCFO formulates and manages EPA’s annual budget and performance plan,
coordinates EPA’s strategic planning efforts, develops EPA’s annual Performanceand Accountability Report, and implements the Government Performance andResults Act.57
Needed Reforms

EPA has been audited by the agency’s Inspector General for decades, wellbeyond accepted norms for private-sector financial audits. Audit teams should bediversified. Staffing assignments, especially at the senior level, should be reviewed
and streamlined, and the office should consolidate space to save agency costs. For
example, six offices need six security contracts to protect employees when one
contract would suffice.
New Policies

Review travel and reimbursement policies for best practices aligned forindustry norms.
Personnel

The Deputy Chief Financial Officer position is currently reserved for a career
official, but political appointees may serve as Associate CFO, Special Advisor, andother senior officials. In addition to evaluating whether the Deputy Chief Financial Officer position should be reserved for a career official, a new Administration
should immediately fill these positions with political appointees and establish a
new political leadership position for Appropriations Liaison, which is currently
overseen by career employees.

— 444 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

BudgetOCFO is responsible for drafting and sharing the President’s budget with Congress. The CFO often testifies along with the Administrator. Efforts to simplify thebudget request could improve the overall transparency and general understandingof the agency’s work.
CONCLUSION

A more conservative EPA that aligns with the policies outlined in this chapter
will lead to a better environmental future without unintended consequences. It
will prevent unnecessary expenditures by the regulated community, allowing forinvestment in economic development and job creation, which are keys to thriving
communities. Cutting EPA’s size and scope will deliver savings to the American
taxpayer. Improved transparency will serve as an important check to ensure thatthe agency’s mission is not distorted or coopted for political gain. Importantly, a
conservative EPA will deliver tangible environmental improvements to the American people in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, and healthier soils.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This chapter could not have been completed without the assistance of numerous policy

experts, legal professionals, and former appointees. A special note of thanks to David Harlow, Justin Schwab,
Aaron Szabo, Clint Woods, and Scott Mason IV. The author alone assumes responsibility for this chapter. No views
expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

— 445 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
ENDNOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

7.

8.
9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.
16.
17.
18.

Gabriella Hoffman, “Fact Check: Is Net Zero an Effective Policy for Stopping Climate Change?” Independent
Women’s Forum, October 31, 2022, https://www.iwf.org/2022/10/31/fact-check-is-net-zero-an-effectivepolicy-for-stopping-climate-change/ (accessed January 25, 2023).
Stephen Lee, Pat Rizzuto, Dean Scott, and Jennifer Hijazi, “EPA Would See Highest Funding Ever Under
Biden Budget Plan (2),” Bloomberg Law, March 28, 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environmentand-energy/epa-would-see-highest-funding-level-ever-under-biden-budget-plan (accessed January 25,2023). See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal
Year 2023 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, April 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/fy-2023-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf (accessed
March 20, 2023).
William Yeatman, “EPA’s Missed Deadlines Cause Widespread Dysfunction,” Competitive Enterprise Institute
Blog, August 3, 2016, https://cei.org/blog/epas-missed-deadlines-causing-widespread-dysfunction/(accessed January 25, 2023).
Shannon Osaka, “The EPA Failed Flint. Now We Know Exactly How,” Grist, July 19, 2018, https://grist.org/
article/the-epa-failed-flint-now-we-know-exactly-how/ (accessed January 25, 2023).
Alan Neuhauser, “EPA to Blame for ‘Preventable’ Gold King Mine Spill,” US News & World Report, October 22,
2015, https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/22/epa-to-blame-for-preventable-gold-king-minespill-interior-dept-finds (accessed January 25, 2023).
Christopher Helman, “EPA Official Not Only Touted ‘Crucifying’ Oil Companies, He Tried It,” Forbes, April 26,
2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/26/epa-official-not-only-touted-crucifyingoil-companies-he-tried-it/?sh=5b7472b15dc9 (accessed March 20, 2023).
News release, “EPA Celebrates 50 Year[s] of Progress, Dedicates Conference Center to First Administrator,”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 2, 2020, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/
epa-celebrates-50-year-progress-dedicates-conference-center-first-administrator (accessed
January 25, 2023).
Case Western Reserve University, “Encyclopedia of Cleveland History: Cuyahoga River Fire,” https://case.edu/
ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire (accessed January 25, 2023).
President Richard Nixon, “Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970: Special Message from the President to theCongress About Reorganization Plans to Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,” July 9, 1970, https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/
reorganization-plan-no-3-1970.html (accessed January 25, 2023).
Ibid.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970),” last
updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act (accessed
January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972),”
last updated July 6, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (accessed
January 25, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary,” last updated November
28, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary (accessed
January 25, 2023).
U.S. Department of State, Office of Environmental Quality, “The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete
the Ozone Layer,” https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundaryissues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/ (accessed January 25, 2023).
5 U.S. Code § 3345 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345 (accessed March 20, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7261(a), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013title42-chap85-subchapIII-sec7621.htm (accessed January 25, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7607(d), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013title42-chap85-subchapIII-sec7607.htm (accessed January 25, 2023).
H.R. 5376, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-169, 117th Congress, August 16, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ169/PLAW-117publ169.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023).

— 446 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

28.

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

35.

36.
37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

42 U.S. Code § 7426(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7426 (accessed January 26, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7410(k)(5)–(6), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410 (accessed January 26, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7601(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7601 (accessed January 26, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7675, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7675 (accessed January 26, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7411, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411 (accessed January 26, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7411(d).
42 U.S. Code § 7412, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 26, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972),”
last updated July 6, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (accessed
January 26, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq,
(1974),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinkingwater-acthttps://www.epa.gov/sdwa (accessed January 26, 2023).
Memorandum from David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Office ofWater Program Directors, “Subject: Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents,” August 6, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/ow_policy_for_draft_documents_to_ow_program_directors_signed_002.pdf (accessed January 26, 2023).
33 U.S. Code § 1341, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1341 (accessed January 26, 2023).
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/04-1034/
index.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023).
33 U.S. Code § 1318, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1318 (accessed January 26, 2023).
33 U.S. Code § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1342 (accessed January 26, 2023).
33 U.S. Code § 1344, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344 (accessed January 26, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
§6901 et seq. (1976),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryresource-conservation-and-recovery-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (1980),” last updated September
12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-responsecompensation-and-liability-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 7412(r), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7412 (accessed January 27, 2023).
42 U.S. Code § 6924(n), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/6924 (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.
(1976),” last updated October 4, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substancescontrol-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq. (1996),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301
et seq. (2002),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-federalfood-drug-and-cosmetic-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,”
last updated March 24, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-rlautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act (accessed January 27, 2023), and “Highlights of Key Provisions
in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century,” last updated February 12, 2020, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/highlights-key-provisions-frank-r-lautenbergchemical (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.
(1973),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangeredspecies-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PRIA Overview and History,” last updated July 19, 2022, https://www.
epa.gov/pria-fees/pria-overview-and-history (accessed January 27, 2023).

— 447 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
44. Table, “EPA Budget by National Program Manager and Major Office,” in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
United States Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2023 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for
the Committee on Appropriations, p. 1076.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “All Federal Advisory Committees at EPA,” last updated March 10, 2023,
https://www.epa.gov/faca/all-federal-advisory-committees-epa (accessed March 20, 2023).
46. For example, EPA has steadfastly refused to follow Clean Air Act requirements that the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee provide, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “unquestionably pertinent” advice on
the “relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural… activity” as well as “any adverse publichealth, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment
and maintenance” of the NAAQS. Memorandum from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, to Assistant Administrators, “Subject: Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient
Air Quality Standards,” May 9, 2018, p. 4, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/
image2018-05-09-173219.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023) (cited hereafter as Pruitt Memorandum, May
9, 2018), and Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 470 n.2 (2001), https://supreme.
justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/457/case.pdF (accessed January 25, 2023). Similarly, EPA has refused tofollow legal requirements dating to the late 1970s regarding congressional requests for scientific advice.
Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018; U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science and Advisory
Panels: Preliminary Observations on the Processes for Providing Scientific Advice,” testimony of J. Alfredo
Gómez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Superfund,
Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate,
GAO-15-636T, May 20, 2015, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-636t (accessed January 25, 2023);
and U.S. Government Accountability Office, “EPA Science Advisory Board: Policy Statement on Science
Quality and Integrity,” GAO-17-526R, June 8, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-526r.pdf (accessed
January 25, 2023).
47. 31 U.S. Code § 3729 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 (accessed March 20, 2023).
48. See Pruitt Memorandum, May 9, 2018.
49. H.R. 4383, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 92nd Congress, October 6, 1972, https://www.
congress.gov/92/statute/STATUTE-86/STATUTE-86-Pg770.pdf (accessed March 20, 2023).
50. 15 U.S. Code Chapter 56A, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-56A (accessed
January 27, 2023).
51. Indian Environmental General Assistance Act of 1992, 42 U.S. Code § 4368b, https://www.law.cornell.edu/
uscode/text/42/4368b (accessed January 27, 2023).
52. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, EPA Legal Tools to Advance
Environmental Justice, May 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20
Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of General Counsel, Office of Policy, “Interim Environmental Justice and Civil Rights in Permitting
Frequently Asked Questions,” August 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/EJ%20
and%20CR%20in%20PERMITTING%20FAQs%20508%20compliant.pdf (accessed January 25, 2023).
53. 2 U.S. Code §§ 2000d–2000d-7, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-V(accessed January 27, 2023).
54. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, No. 1:14CV954 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 30, 2019),
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20191008j38 (accessed January 27, 2023).
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 2 Environmental Justice Action Plan, p. 24, https://www.
epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/region_2_environmental_justice_action_plan.pdf (accessed
January 27, 2023).
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq. (1969),” last updated September 12, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-nationalenvironmental-policy-act (accessed January 27, 2023).
57. 31 U.S. Code § 1115, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1115 (accessed January 27, 2023).

— 448 —