Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
Federal regulators are giving chemical manufacturers and oil refiners more time to provide data on a range of chemicals linked to human health risks as officials consider tightening regulations.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the deadline has been extended The compliance period for health and safety data reporting rules will run for one year until May 2027, with an extension necessary to provide “regulatory certainty”. The agency said it would use the extension to decide whether to revise the rule, in part because of “legitimate concerns” raised by industry groups about the rule’s cost and scope.
The rule, passed in 2024, requires industry to send to the EPA unpublished safety and health data on 16 chemicals that the agency is considering stricter regulation of due to concerns about environmental and human health risks. The chemicals include the common plastic additives bisphenol A (BPA) and vinyl chloride, as well as the petroleum refining chemicals benzene and naphthalene.
The deadline extension was widely criticized by health and environmental groups, who warned that companies only needed to submit health and safety studies they had already conducted, and that late submissions meant they would lose information about chemicals to which people are frequently exposed.
“This is another tactic by the Trump EPA to make it more difficult to regulate the most toxic chemicals like vinyl chloride and hydrogen fluoride,” said Maria Doerr, senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund. “They are delaying a simple request for industry to provide EPA with unpublished research on the potential harms of the chemicals they manufacture.”
EPA received dozens of comments A majority opposed the extension, saying it was postponed before it was finalized. For example, a joint comment by 49 environmental and health organizations stated that people are exposed to 16 chemicals of concern on a daily basis.
“Many[of the chemicals]have been linked to cancer, developmental and reproductive harm, and other serious illnesses,” said a joint comment by environmental and health groups. “The public has a right to know the full extent of the harm caused by these chemicals.”
Tom Fox, policy director for the Center for Environmental Health, one of the organizations that signed the joint comments, said the extension shows EPA is not willing to conduct proper risk assessments on these chemicals. “They’re trying to narrow the scope of what they’re looking at,” he says.
“They’re trying to narrow the scope of what they’re looking at.” – Tom Fox, Center for Environmental Health
In the final rule, the agency defended the delay and dismissed the concerns.
“EPA does not agree that a one-year extension would impair EPA’s legal obligations or ability to rely on the best available science,” the rule says. “EPA does not anticipate any loss of relevant data as a result of this extension, as entities will continue to be subject to applicable record-keeping requirements.”
In addition to plans to review reporting rules, the agency cited President Trump’s executive orders as part of the reason for the extension, including a February 2025 Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) order to “rescind unlawful regulations or regulations that harm the national interest.”
Several industry groups have expressed support for the extension, including the American Petroleum Institute, which wrote that “reporting cannot be mandated until EPA considers and determines appropriate modifications to this one-time reporting rule, including consistency with current executive orders.”
Jonathan Kalmus Katz, senior attorney specializing in toxic exposure and health at Earthjustice, said the extension is “pointless and harmful” because the rule does not require any new testing or new data from industry.
“This simply directs chemical manufacturers to provide EPA with the knowledge and research they already have,” he said, adding that in his view the extension is illegal.
“EPA has initiated risk assessments for some of these chemicals or identified them as candidates for regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),” he said. “TSCA legally requires EPA to conduct risk assessments based on reasonably available information, and these studies are reasonably available.”
Widespread battle over toxic chemicals laws
The delay comes in the context of a broader battle over TSCA, the federal law that allows the EPA to evaluate chemicals to ensure that human and environmental health are protected before they are put on the market.
TSCA was updated in 2016 with bipartisan support, but has since drawn the ire of the chemical industry for being unnecessarily slow, unreliable and stifling American innovation.
Reviews take time, and the EPA reviews new chemicals less than 10% of the time within the 90-day deadline, according to federal data. 2023 report From the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Despite past bipartisan politics surrounding TSCA, support for the current law now falls along partisan lines, with Democrats expressing a desire to leave or strengthen the law, and Republicans echoing industry talk that TSCA in its current form is hurting U.S. competitiveness in chemical markets. Republican in both countries house and senate In recent months, Congress has been considering a bill aimed at amending TSCA to speed up chemical safety reviews.
Congress is expected to consider a bill to amend TSCA by September 30, when TSCA fees expire.
Featured image: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Credit: USDA)
-
Brian Bienkowski is the editor-in-chief of The New Lede. He is a veteran journalist with over 15 years of experience covering the environment and human health. Prior to joining TNL, he was a senior editor at Environmental Health News for nearly a decade, overseeing the newsroom and two local bureaus. He was also the founder, producer, and host of the EJ podcast Agents of Change from 2020 to 2024.
Bienkowski has received multiple awards for her editing and reporting, including honors from the Healthcare Journalists Association, Columbia School of Journalism, Hunter College, and the Environmental Journalists Association. He has a master’s degree in environmental journalism from Michigan State University and lives in northern Michigan.
