Coalition Calls for Reform of the EPA’s Registration Process

Amid growing concerns about the speed and efficiency of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) product approvals, attendees at the 2025 ISSA Clean Advocacy Summit on March 31 were given a clear message: It’s time to reform and reinvest in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).

Laurie Flanagan, executive vice president of DC Legislative and Regulatory Services (DCLRS) and a leading voice of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) Coalition, delivered this urgent call. Addressing a packed room of industry professionals and advocates, Flanagan outlined the critical challenges surrounding the registration of cleaning and disinfecting products and the policy solutions being championed to fix the broken system.

Clean spaces require registered products

Flanagan began by grounding the audience in a reality many in the cleaning industry overlook: Sanitizers and disinfectants are considered pesticide products under federal law. “Anything that kills, repels, or mitigates pests—yes, including germs and viruses—is classified as a pesticide and must be registered with the EPA,” she explained.

That process is rigorous and data-heavy. Manufacturers must submit extensive testing and efficacy data to prove that their products are safe for people, animals, and the environment and that they do what they claim. But Flanagan warned that getting a product through that regulatory maze is increasingly difficult due to a critical shortage of EPA reviewers and mounting political and budgetary challenges.

A workforce in decline, delays on the rise

EPA’s OPP is the federal entity responsible for these registrations. At its peak in 2004, when PRIA was enacted, the office had nearly 900 employees. Today, that number has dwindled to approximately 525, and the outlook is worsening.

Due to a slew of executive orders and agency budget cuts, provisional employees have been let go, and federal hiring freezes have compounded the issue. Some staff remain on the payroll but are no longer working—either because they opted for deferred retirement or have been placed on administrative leave following legal disputes.

“We had significant delays even when 560 people were on the job last year,” Flanagan said. “Now, with even fewer staff, delays are growing longer and more unpredictable.”

This breakdown in the registration system doesn’t just hurt manufacturers. It directly impacts building service contractors, schools, hospitals, and facility managers who rely on approved cleaning products to protect public health.

The PRIA law and the $41 million funding gap

Under PRIA, manufacturers pay fees in exchange for EPA decisions within certain deadlines. However, the law also requires Congress to appropriate a minimum of US $166 million annually to fund EPA’s registration efforts. In 2023, the office received only $125 million—well short of what’s needed.

“The law mandates that baseline support,” Flanagan emphasized. “Without it, the agency cannot meet its deadlines, and our industry cannot get the products it needs.”

More than 78% of antimicrobial product submissions—which include the very disinfectants used to kill viruses in public spaces—are missing their registration deadlines, according to ISSA.

Partnering for efficiency—but funding is still essential

While budget increases are essential, Flanagan was quick to note that industry coalitions are not just asking for more money—they’re also advocating for smarter processes.

Through the PRIA Coalition, ISSA is working with partner organizations like the American Chemistry Council and the Household & Commercial Products Association to drive internal EPA reforms. These include:

• Modernizing IT systems.
• Streamlining data review processes.
• Enabling self-certification when appropriate.
• Conducting third-party audits to identify bottlenecks.

“There’s a real willingness to help the EPA become more efficient,” she said. “But even with those improvements, the agency cannot fill a $40 million hole through efficiency alone.”

Why it matters

Flanagan acknowledged that EPA funding isn’t a popular cause, particularly among some lawmakers who have publicly called for slashing the agency’s budget. But she urged attendees to make a clear distinction when speaking to Congress.

“We’re not asking to fund every EPA program,” she clarified. “We’re asking to fund the one function that gives us the tools to protect public health—the ability to license and register the products that clean, disinfect, and keep our environments safe.”

In a rare moment of optimism, she pointed to EPA Administrator Michael Regan’s remarks on National Agriculture Day, when he publicly committed to improving pesticide licensing and meeting registration deadlines.

“This is the first time in years we’ve had an EPA Administrator talk about registration deadlines as a top-five priority,” Flanagan said. “And while he was talking about agriculture, those same principles apply to us.”

A clear and simple ask

As attendees prepared to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, which occurred on April 1, Flanagan left them with a direct and powerful message:

“We need Congress to fund the Office of Pesticide Programs at $166 million so that our cleaning products—green, traditional, and everything in between—can be registered efficiently and predictably. This isn’t about politics. It’s about public health.”