It's kind of shocking, when it comes to how irresponsible it is. It's emblematic of a desire to, essentially, increase corporate power.
See this page in the PDF
Environmental Protection Agency
Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions.
Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress.
CAA Section 111”
Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that 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)* to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states.
CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)** Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated 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.
Radiation Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as
international standards.
Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.