Industry says EPA missed 90‑day deadlines for new chemicals; witnesses propose shot clock and clearer standards
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Industry witnesses told the House subcommittee that EPA routinely misses the 90‑day statutory deadline for TSCA new‑chemical reviews, producing a backlog that they say drives innovation overseas; public‑health witnesses said delays sometimes stem from inadequately detailed submissions and supported EPA authority to require further data.
Industry trade groups told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment that the EPA’s new‑chemical program routinely exceeds the 90‑day statutory review period required by TSCA, and that missed deadlines and inconsistent decision making have slowed commercial deployment of new chemistries.
Chris Jahn, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, told the panel that EPA public data in January showed hundreds of chemicals in the review queue and that most were past the statutory 90‑day deadline. Jeff Moody of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and Dr. Richard Engler of ACTA made similar points, describing a backlog, inconsistent reviewer decisions, and an environment that industry said discourages U.S. commercialization of new, lower‑impact chemistries.
Industry and some members urged a ‘‘shot clock’’ or automatic accountability tied to the 90‑day deadline, improved EPA communication of the information it expects in initial premanufacture notices (PMNs), and better program management and IT support. Witnesses and members also proposed limited statutory clarifications to reduce uncertainty about the ‘‘not likely to present unreasonable risk’’ threshold under TSCA section 5 so that predictable outcomes follow timely reviews.
Public‑health and environmental witnesses including Dr. Maria Doa (Environmental Defense Fund) cautioned that many delays arise after EPA identifies preliminary concerns and submitters return additional data. Doa described repeated rounds of supplemental data as a real driver of longer reviews and said EPA must retain authority to request information necessary to make an affirmative safety determination for market entry.
Committee members asked about remedies that do not erode statutory safety standards. Suggestions included: a statutory accountability mechanism or performance standard tied to fees reauthorization; clearer guidance from EPA on ‘‘reasonably ascertainable’’ information required at submission; improved EPA internal practices to reduce reviewer variability; and increased appropriations for staffing and IT to reduce rework.
The hearing did not resolve a single legislative fix, but it produced examples — including accounts of individual PMNs pending more than a year — that members said they will use to evaluate next steps.