A little more info on this, as I was curious and did a little reading.
The FDA are willing to defer the decision on some of these, so long as the sponsors for these can fill in some 'data gaps':
https://chemicalwatch.com/80668/fda-lays-out-conditions-for-deferred-action-on-eight-sunscreen-ingredients
Some of these (avobenzone and oxybenzone included) are absorbed into the blood, at a higher rate than the FDA are willing to ignore:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/sunscreen-ingredients-absorbed-into-blood--study-65844
Key passages:In a 29 July response, the FDA said it agrees to defer action on the eight, provided the associations can illustrate "satisfactory commitments to fill the data gaps"by the September date. The agency has instructed the PCPC and the CHPA to submit drafts of their plans to the docket , including proposed timelines for each study.
If the commitments to address the data gaps for a given ingredient are satisfactory, the FDA will defer further rulemaking for that ingredient for one year, subject to renewal.
"However, if studies have not been commenced, or if the studies in progress do not appear, in FDA's judgment, to be productive, the agency expects that it will proceed with rulemaking for the ingredient after the initial deferral period," writes the FDA’s Theresa Michele.
Basically, unless someone can show progress by September on the impacts of these chemicals on people, the FDA will rule they are no GRASE (generally recognised as safe and effective), and will need to go through the entire process to be re-approved as sunscreen ingredients.
