EPA Chemical Reviews Run Over a Year Against a 90-Day Deadline

More than 90% of EPA reviews of new chemicals are behind schedule, despite a statutory 90-day deadline — and the average review now takes over a year. Chris Jahn, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, delivered those figures at the U.S. Chamber's 2026 Chemistry Solutions Forum in Washington, DC, published July 21, 2026, as evidence that the U.S. regulatory framework is dragging on manufacturers.

"EPA has 90 days to approve or disapprove a new chemical," Jahn explained. "On average, it takes over a year. More than 90% of the reviews are behind schedule."

The forum brought together policymakers and industry executives to examine how chemistry policy shapes American competitiveness across semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, energy, and advanced manufacturing.

Why does chemistry decide economic leadership?

Marty Durbin, Senior Vice President of Policy at the U.S. Chamber, framed the stakes in terms of the technologies dominating policy debates. "The race for AI leadership, advanced manufacturing, and energy security is, in many ways, a race for chemistry leadership," Durbin said.

Jahn built on that argument: the United States cannot lead in advanced technologies without a modern, predictable, and workable regulatory framework. Permitting is the other chokepoint. Even with abundant domestic natural gas supplies, Jahn said infrastructure cannot keep pace with demand.

"We just need to get [natural gas] to where it needs to go, and our permitting system doesn't have the ability to do that," Jahn said.

What did the forum say about geopolitical risk?

Supply-chain resilience took a prominent place on the agenda. Jan Kalfus of S&P Global examined the Strait of Hormuz and the chemical supply chain, detailing how geopolitical risk, shipping chokepoints, and global market disruptions affect manufacturers and downstream industries. The discussion stressed supply chains that are diversified, secure, and backed by strong domestic production capacity and trusted trading relationships.

Federal officials said the government is working on the problem. Steven Haines, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, said policymakers are focused on "creating a domestic environment where supply chain resiliency and industrial resiliency is possible."

How do competing regulations trap small businesses?

Small manufacturers face a distinct problem: agencies that don't align their rules. Nick Goldstein, Assistant Chief Counsel for Environment at the SBA Office of Advocacy, described how small businesses get caught between conflicting agency standards.

"So you're a small business, you've got an OSHA limit that you know and that you're familiar with, and now all of a sudden you're told, 'Well, wait a minute, EPA has a different limit…' and… they're stuck in the middle," Goldstein said.

He also asked companies to feed real-world data to his office. "Put me in touch with smaller suppliers" on regulatory impacts, Goldstein urged. "That's enormously helpful. That's the type of information that we need."

Where does chemistry meet AI and data centers?

The forum connected chemistry directly to the computing economy. Nathan Blom, Vice President of Liquid Cooling at Chemours, discussed the chemistry behind immersive cooling and its role in supporting high-performance computing, data centers, and other energy-intensive applications.

"We can start talking about how we're going to be able to enable AI for the next 5, 10, 15 years as we look out into the future," Blom said.

Thomas Isberg, Vice President of Research and Development at Solstice Advanced Materials, highlighted the importance of moving promising innovations from discovery to deployment. He argued businesses need clear rules of the road and a policy environment that supports investment at scale.

What happens next?

The U.S. Chamber says it will keep convening stakeholders, pushing for pragmatic reforms, and advocating for policies that give American businesses regulatory certainty. The forum's central claim: getting chemistry policy right is getting the economy right. A modern, science-based, and predictable regulatory framework, participants argued, will determine where the technologies of the future are built, manufactured, and deployed.