BOX C-1
Findings and Recommendations from NRC, 2010

On the basis of its evaluation and review, the committee offers the following findings and recommendations:

• The committee agrees with previous expert panels and committees that a science and engineering workforce that is capable of performing and conducting research at the highest level is essential for EPA to protect public health and the environment.
• On the basis of the committee’s review of ST [scientific or professional], SL [senior level], and SES [Senior Executive Service] positions, the committee concludes that no other hiring mechanisms or authorities available to EPA serve the function of Title 42 to recruit and retain world-class scientists and engineers.
• The selection of particular research fields that would benefit most from Title 42 appointments is of paramount importance. The committee recommends that ORD focus its Title 42 appointees in fields deemed most critical by its research priority-setting process.
• The committee notes that the number of Title 42 appointments is not limited at NIH [National Institutes of Health] and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], other federal agencies that fill scientific positions using Title 42 authority. The numbers of Title 42 appointments in those agencies are substantially larger than at EPA.

• All world-class scientists and engineers do not necessarily have doctoral-level degrees, and EPA should be flexible in its requirement that all Title 42 appointees have such degrees.
• EPA has approached the use of Title 42 authority prudently. For example, a position was not filled when highly qualified candidates could not be identified, and EPA has not awarded the maximum compensation allowed under Title 42 to appointees. The committee concurs with EPA’s approach.
• In developing its Title 42 program, EPA has used various techniques to recruit candidates. To identify the most qualified candidate, the committee recommends that EPA adhere to the following procedure: (1) establish a search committee to oversee recruitment, promote diversity in the process, evaluate applicants’ credentials, and recommend the most qualified applicants to a selection committee; (2) advertise widely on appropriate Web sites, in appropriate journals, through scientific and engineering societies, and by contacting highly competent people in the relevant disciplines; and (3) form a selection committee to determine the best candidate and forward the recommendation to ORD management, ultimately the ORD AA [assistant administrator] or designee, for approval. Both search and selection committees should include members who are outside EPA. The entire search and selection process should be as open as feasible to ensure that the best practices are followed, that a broad and diverse search has reached the most qualified potential candidates, and that fairness prevails.
• The Title 42 program at EPA is small and still evolving, but it has worked well. Outstanding candidates have been identified and hired, and top scientists have been retained. Furthermore, the BOSC [Board of Scientific Counselors] and EPA indicate that the Title 42 program has helped the agency to achieve its mission. For example, the NCCT [National Center for Computational Toxicology] has, in its few years of existence, conducted important research and made substantial progress in developing new tools based on advances in molecular biology and genomics.
• The committee recommends that permanent Title 42 authority be granted to EPA.
• The committee recommends that EPA use the BOSC or the SAB [Science Advisory Board] to review the Title 42 program every 5 years to ensure that it is being used for the intended purposes of creating a critical mass of world-class scientists and engineers, that Title 42 hires are in the fields identified as having the highest priority by the agency, and that it is implemented in a manner that ensures selection of the best candidates.
• The committee recommends that EPA be granted expanded authority to define the number of Title 42 positions on the basis of its programmatic needs and available budget.

SOURCE: NRC (2010).