After Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chair Inez Tenenbaum announced that the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates and Phthalate Substitutes (CHAP) would submit its draft final report to scientific peer reviewers nominated by the National Academy of Sciences, a number of stakeholders continued to debate whether it should instead undergo a public scientific peer review process.

A coalition of groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumers Union, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submitted a letter to the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), asking OMB to reject a call by chemical industry interests to require CPSC to subject the CHAP process to OMB’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. According to the groups’ April 23, 2013, letter, this process is neither applicable nor consistent with congressional intent under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which evidently does not contemplate further review of the CHAP report. The letter’s signatories were apparently concerned about expediting the completion of CHAP’s review.

Voicing concerns about U.S. jobs, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) claimed in an April 24 blog comment posted on The Hill that CPSC “is breaking the rules by refusing to allow its [phthalates] findings to be reviewed in an open process. Instead, the Commission is relying on a closed-door panel to conduct the analysis and make recommendations to the Commission.” Kinzinger also complained that CPSC is “marching ahead with new rules without review or comment by those who will be affected by it.” Kinzinger contends that $10 billion to $15 billion and 30,000 to 40,000 jobs are at stake.