Notice of objection filed by General Motors of Canada Company and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to General Motors of Canada Company

Notice of objection

July 13, 2022
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault
Minister of the Environment
c/o Christina Paradiso
Executive Director Chemicals Management, Environmental Protection Branch
Department of the Environment
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

Email: interdiction-prohibition@ec.gc.ca

Re: Notice of Objection in relation to proposed restrictions to manufacture, use, sale and import of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE, CAS Registry Number 84852-53-9) per the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 20 – May 14, 2022: Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022.

Dear Minister:

General Motors would like to express our formal objection to the above-referenced regulatory proposal as it pertains to the use, sale and import of the fire retardant, DBDPE, in vehicles. The automotive industry has been engaged with your department on our need for a minimum of ten years to phase out the use of this important flame retardant, but the current proposal fails to provide this basic and necessary transition period.

As we have consistently articulated throughout the consultation process, the auto sector operates on very long lead time. Like other OEMs, General Motors designs, tests and sources vehicle components several years before they go into a typical five-year production cycle. The reliance on flame retardants for legislated safety standards in thousands of distinct parts with no “drop-in” replacement flame retardant identified means there is no pathway to meet the proposed phase-out deadline.

The unintended consequence of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s proposal may be significant harm to the auto sector in Canada. This unique proposal to ban DBDPE in five years would force the industry to stop selling many if not all of our new vehicles (including electric vehicles) in Canada by 2027 or 2028 when the exemption expires. Additionally, this would leave companies like GM Canada with no alternative but to stop manufacturing vehicles in Canada until a replacement for DBDPE is identified and integrated throughout our supply chain.

Role of DBDPE in Auto Manufacturing:

There is currently no “drop-in” replacement for this flame retardant. The automotive sector has provided extensive evidence of the lack of a replacement.

• DBDPE was evaluated and assessed by the automotive sector as the most appropriate alternative to replace our use of decaBDE and significant effort has been taken to ensure the complete global phase-out of decaBDE with DBDPE over the last 12 or more years.
• The Regulatory Impact and Analysis Statement (RIAS) included with the draft proposed regulatory amendments fails to quantify or accurately anticipate the costs or consequences of a short phase out period. Without adequate time to identify, test, ramp up global supply chains, and validate vehicles for sale, the RIAS should reflect the real possibility of lost jobs associated with production shutdowns, the impact to the economy in terms of associated jobs lost in the automotive parts supply chain, the impact to dealers if new vehicle sales are limited, as well as the cost to the industry to develop unique vehicles for the Canadian market despite the harmonized vehicle safety regulations.
• Currently, this chemical is formulated and engineered into materials needed by our industry to meet stringent vehicle safety requirements. The implementation of this regulation will have ripple effects throughout the industry as we will have to ensure that the reformulation of every different material and application that currently relies on this flame retardant will meet all applicable regulatory, safety and industry standards.

Timeline for alternative formulations:

• Flame retardant transition is an iterative process due to the complexity and oversight needed. We anticipate progress towards finding alternatives will occur within the five year time frame, but a complete transition will take significantly longer. In the past, transitions of this magnitude received longer timeframes approaching 15 years.
• Alternative formulations must be tested not just to meet the flammability requirements but the full range of automotive standards such as durability, UV resistant, cold cracking, etc. Depending on the application this could mean 14 or more unique testing requirements, some taking months to perform.
• The Canadian government currently has assessments underway for several other flame retardants that are possible alternatives to this chemical, although none are “drop-in” replacements. Until we have clarity regarding alternatives available for use in Canada, industry is without clear direction and the potential for a regrettable substitution is high.

Impacts to North American Integrated Auto Sector:

• The automotive industry has repeatedly requested that chemical restrictions of this nature should be contemplated on a global basis due to the significant impact unique country restrictions can pose on the automotive sector and vehicle safety. No regulatory authority in the world has proposed risk management measures as set out in the draft Regulation.
• Canada is the only jurisdiction in the world limiting the use of DBDPE in vehicles. This means vehicle manufacturers can not leverage global efforts and will have to take on this work to develop a unique vehicle for the Canadian market, undermining the efforts to create a harmonized North American market and providing economies of scale to reduce costs and bring technology to Canada at the same time and cost as other markets.
• With no alignment on a replacement for DBDPE it is not clear that vehicles could be produced in Canada for export to the United States or any other markets. At a time when Canada has partnered with manufacturers to incentivize electric vehicle production domestically, those investments could now be at risk.

General Motors is not challenging the authority of the government to restrict chemicals in Canada, but we believe that the appropriate considerations of the technical feasibility, alternatives and impacts to domestic manufacturing jobs and investment has not been appropriately reflected in the proposed regulation. We have a history of working with the government to phase out chemicals of concerns and create products that help address environmental challenges such as climate change. We need a risk management approach that supports the transformation in the industry, continues to provide vehicles with the highest levels of safety and supports an integrated North American industry.

Based upon the facts and arguments set out above we ask the Minister to appoint a Board of Review to

• Inquire into the nature and extent of danger posed by DBDPE to determine if the restrictions as proposed are commensurate with the safety benefits when used in motor vehicles,
• Reassess the RIAS to reflect the potential harm that will arise if sufficient time isn’t provided to appropriately assess and transition to an alternative (without the benefit of understanding the Canadian government final assessment of the remaining flame retardants) and
• Assess if alternative risk management approaches would reach the desired outcome to reduce risk of exposure to possible degradation products of DBDPE in the environment.

Sincerely,

Tammy Giroux
Manager Government Relations
General Motors of Canada Company

Minister's response

Ms. Tammy Giroux
Manager, Government Relations
General Motors of Canada Company
tammy.giroux@gm.com

Dear Ms. Giroux:

This letter is in response to your Notice of Objection and request to establish a board of review to the publication of the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (proposed Regulations), which was received by Environment and Climate Change Canada on July 13, 2022. The proposed Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 14, 2022.

I have carefully considered all the issues in your Notice of Objection, including those dealing with the nature and extent of the danger posed by decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) and the other questions and considerations that you brought to my attention. In my opinion, your Notice of Objection does not raise sufficient uncertainty or doubt in the science underlying the proposed Regulations that would warrant the establishment of a board of review under subsection 333(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Therefore, I am denying your request, and I will not establish a board of review. The reasons for my decision are explained below and in the Annex to this letter.

Responses to comments in your Notice of Objection related to the outcomes of the screening assessment for DBDPE, which concluded that there is a risk of harm to the environment due to the persistence and widespread occurrence of DBDPE in the environment along with the potential for bioaccumulation and toxicity of its transformation products, are provided in the Annex.

The comments in your Notice of Objection regarding the development of the proposed Regulations have been considered alongside other comments received on these regulations. The specific points you have raised on the proposed Regulations and how they will be addressed are also summarized in the Annex to this letter. Your Notice of Objection raised specific concerns on the proposed exemptions for DBDPE, and to address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of these exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the proposed Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

Please note that the comments on the proposed Regulations will be summarized in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that will be published with the final Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 (2025 Regulations) in the Canada Gazette, Part II, which describe how these matters have been addressed.

I appreciate your bringing your concerns to my attention. Please accept my best regards.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Julie Dabrusin, P.C., M.P. (elle/she/her)

Annex

1) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that you provided information that a minimum of 10 years is required to phase out DBDPE but the current proposal fails to provide the necessary transition period and that due long lead times are required to the design, testing, and sourcing of vehicle components before they move to a 5-year production lifecycle. Furthermore, you commented that the lack of available drop in replacement flame retardants means you cannot meet the proposed phase-out deadline and the proposed risk management may cause significant harm to the auto sector in Canada, including manufacturing and sales impacts.

Please refer to the points 2, 3 and 4 (below), regarding the above concerns.

2) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Role of DBDPE in Auto Manufacturing” as set out in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

2A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that DBDPE is used as a substitute for decaBDE, which was phased out in alignment with global agreements and regulations and that DBDPE is used as a flame retardant to meet critical flammability standards and safety requirements in products such as motor vehicles. 

Flame retardant substances are generally used to meet performance-based flammability requirements. These requirements do not specify what chemical flame retardants need to be used; rather they may require a product or component to pass a laboratory test such as a cigarette smolder or open flame ignition test (ASTM 2014). Using chemical flame retardants such as DBDPE in products is one of the ways by which companies can meet flammability requirements for their products. Alternate substances as well as non-chemical-based alternatives may also be used to replace the use of DBDPE as a flame retardant in various applications.

It is not specified which alternatives industry should transition to as it is contingent upon industry to identify and transition to appropriate alternatives. To support industry and stakeholders in their transition to safer alternatives, a summary of flame retardant assessments and management conducted under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 has been published.

Risk management options take into consideration risks to be managed and may include the use of existing or new risk management instruments. Risk management tools are selected to best address the risk and existing risk management instruments can be used, such as the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022, to minimize regulatory duplication in instruments.  

2B) In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that the short timeline and the prohibition of DBDPE proposed in Canada may cause significant harm to Canadian automotive sector manufacturing and sales and that the Regulatory Impact and Analysis Statement (RIAS) does not reflect the significant time and costs (including job losses) associated with switching to alternatives on such a short timeline which requires research and development, prototyping, performance testing, manufacturing retooling, and regulatory compliance certification.

In addition to the concerns you have raised in your Notice of Objection, a number of similar comments were received during the public comment period for the proposed Regulations. To address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

3) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Timeline for alternative formulations” as set out in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that transitioning flame retardants is an iterative process that may take 5 years to identify an alternative and longer, up to 15 years, to completely transition. In addition, you commented that when testing alternative formulations to meet flammability requirements, they must be tested for other automotive considerations such as durability, UV resistances, cold cracking, etc. In addition, you noted that the Department is currently assessing other flame retardants that are possible alternatives; however, until assessments are complete the industry is without clear direction and has a potential for regrettable substitution to occur. 

Please refer to the response to point 2B (above) respecting the extended timeline for, and broadened scope of the DBDPE exemptions.

4) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Impacts to North American Integrated Auto Sector” as set out in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

In your Notice of Objection, you noted that the prohibition of DBDPE proposed in Canada poses a risk to Canadian automotive industry, including electric vehicle partnerships. In addition, you commented that with only Canada being the only jurisdiction proposing to limit DBDPE in motor vehicles means that vehicle manufacturers cannot leverage global efforts which undermines harmonized North American market and economies of scale for the Canadian market.  

Canada has been one of the first countries to lead action on flame retardants and was the first country to complete a risk assessment and propose risk management of DBDPE; however, Canada is not alone and since then international action for DBDPE has been underway or has been finalized. 

In March 2023, the European Union (EU), under the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published their Regulatory strategy for flame retardants, which has a focus on brominated flame retardants and their prioritization for restriction, including DBDPE. This document noted that:

For decabromodiphenyl ethane (EC 284-366-9, DBDPE) data was requested regarding potential bioaccumulation under substance evaluation and has been assessed by the PBT expert group. The available data, including field studies, appear to confirm the Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties of the substance.

Furthermore, on October 31, 2024, ECHA updated the substance evaluation status for DBDPE as “Concluded” and published a Substance Evaluation Conclusion and Evaluation Report that considers DBDPE to meet the Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) Annex XIII very persistent and very bioaccumulative criteria, wide dispersive use and high aggregated tonnage concerns and the need for follow-up regulatory action at the EU level. The report notes the restriction of aromatic brominated flame retardants as proposed in ECHA’s Regulatory strategy for flame retardants appears as a logical continuation following a formal hazard identification as very persistent and very bioaccumulative for DBDPE.

On June 27, 2025, ECHA published a proposal for identification of DBDPE as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) on the basis of the criteria set out in REACH Article 57. A REACH Annex XV report was prepared by Sweden to support the proposal for identification of DBDPE as a SVHC.

In the United States (US), DBDPE is listed as a new chemical and is subject to a Significant New Use Rule, which requires manufacturers and processors to notify the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before a new use for the manufacture, import or processing of DBDPE begins. In June 2021, the EPA made DBDPE subject to a Final Health and Safety Data Reporting rule pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as part of a grouping of 30 organohalogen flame retardants being evaluated for risks by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In January 2024, the CPSC published Organohalogen Flame Retardant Scope Document: Polyhalogenated Benzene Aliphatic and Functionalized Subclass report (the PHBzAF subclass, which includes DBDPE) which concludes that “the PHBzAF subclass has sufficient data to proceed with risk assessment”. Furthermore, DBDPE is restricted in some consumer products under general flame retardant restrictions in some states, such as California, Maine, and New Hampshire.

In August of 2021, Australia published their assessment of DBDPE and found that DBDPE:

meets the persistence, bioaccumulation, adverse effects in aquatic and terrestrial organisms and long-range transport criteria of Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Therefore, on the basis of the current hazard information available, the assessed chemical could pose an unreasonable risk to the environment. 

The Australian report also recommended control measures be developed under the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Act 2021.

On June 26, 2025, the Australian government finalized its risk management for DBDPE after publishing a statutory public consultation on the proposed risk management for DBDPE in April 2025. The Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard for decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) is a final scheduling decision to list DBDPE to Schedule 6 of the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Instrument 2022. Schedule 6 of this instrument lists “Relevant industrial chemicals that are likely to cause serious or irreversible harm with essential uses” and specifies the risk management measures, including prohibitions and restrictions, that apply to the relevant industrial chemical or a mixture or article containing such a chemical (Australia, 2025).

Canadian risk management for DBDPE takes into consideration actions taken in jurisdictions, including the EU and the US, with the possibility of aligning where appropriate.

5) In your Notice of Objection, you requested the Minister to appoint a board of review to inquire in the nature and extent of danger posed by DBDPE to determine if the restrictions as proposed are commensurate with the safety benefits when used in motor vehicles; Reassess the RIAS to reflect the potential harm that will arise if sufficient time isn’t provided to appropriately assess and transition to an alternative (without the benefit of understanding the Canadian government final assessment of the remaining flame retardants); and, Assess if alternative risk management approaches would reach the desired outcome to reduce risk of exposure to possible degradation products of DBDPE in the environment. 

Please refer to the points 2, 3 and 4 (above).