Notice of objection filed by Honda Canada Inc. and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to Honda Canada Inc.

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: ec.interdiction-prohibition.ec@ec.gc.ca

Re: Notice of Objection with Respect to Proposed Regulations Prohibiting the Manufacture, Use, Sale and Import of Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDPE)

Dear Minister Guilbeault:

Honda Canada Inc. is writing to you to express our formal objection to the regulatory proposal published in the Canada Gazette on May 14^th, 2022, which includes, among proposed restrictions on certain chemicals, a proposal to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale and import of DBDPE, CAS Registry Number 84852-53-9. The automotive industry has been engaged with ECCC for a number of years throughout the risk assessment and management process for this substance through our affiliations with Global Automakers Canada (GAC) and Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association (CVMA). Since the risk management was released in 2019, we have had numerous conversations with ECCC regarding the critical importance and broad use of this flame retardant.

As provided for by section 332(2) of CEPA 1999, Honda Canada Inc. is filing this Notice of Objection and respectfully requests that a Board of Review be established, pursuant to section 333 of CEPA 1999, to review the nature and extent of the danger posed by the substance as well as the timeline for, and economic impact of, the prohibition of DBDPE. We are not experts on the science behind predicting the effect of environmental degradation and although we are concerned about the methodology, we do not have data to support a review of this science. At this time, our Notice of Objection is based on the lack of consideration given to the technical and economic feasibility of the prohibition.

Honda Motor has demonstrated leadership in the elimination of flame retardants such as HBCD ahead of ECCC’s requirement. Honda Canada Inc. and Honda of Canada Mfg. support the scientific review of chemicals used in commerce in Canada and have participated in ECCC’s information gathering initiatives in order to ensure that the Government is able to make informed decisions in the risk analysis and management phases of the Chemical Management Plan. In the case of DBDPE, information on this substance in automotive parts has been provided to ECCC through our responses to the June 2017 S. 71 notice, and in 2020 through submissions by GAC and CVMA regarding the quantity of DBDPE in different types of vehicles. This data was reviewed with ECCC to ensure that staff understood the ubiquitous nature of the substance in various types of auto parts, as well as the low concentration levels.

Over the last three years GAC and CVMA have had numerous conversations with ECCC about the challenges associated with eliminating DBDPE, including a meeting on July 13, 2021, with Minister Wilkinson’s office. ECCC appears to recognize the difficulty of replacing DBDPE but is planning to proceed with its prohibition regardless.

As previously communicated to ECCC, DBDPE is an effective flame retardant used in a broad range of automotive parts from electronics to foams to plastics, enabling the vehicle to meet the requirements of Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The challenge to replacing DBDPE lies in the fact that there is no known “drop in” replacement. This means that all reformulated parts will require extensive testing and potential redesign to ensure that quality and safety standards are met. It is estimated that this will take several years after identification of proposed alternatives, at a cost to vehicle manufacturers of potentially millions of dollars each. The proposed timeline of five years, plus potentially three annual permitted extensions, is insufficient to complete this transition.

We are greatly concerned that ECCC has decided to break with the history of regulatory cooperation with our largest trading partner, the United States, and is also moving ahead of the EU on regulation of DBDPE. Canada is alone in identifying DBDPE as a substance requiring risk management, making the Canadian vehicle industry an outlier in a global marketplace. This creates the potential for disruption to the Canadian supply chain and significant disadvantage to Ontario vehicle manufacturers, particularly if a replacement flame retardant is more expensive than DBDPE. If foreign parts suppliers manufacture a different, more expensive part for the Canadian market, it will create a cost imbalance that will affect the ability of Canadian manufacturers to compete for product mandates. Vehicle production may also be jeopardized by foreign parts suppliers declining to supply the relatively small Canadian vehicle manufacturing market rather than undergo the cost and challenge of redesigning and certifying their products. As well, the system for maintaining service and replacement parts, currently managed at a North American level, will be disrupted, risking the availability of parts for Canadian vehicles.

The transition to electric vehicles will also be impacted as it will not be economically viable for foreign manufacturers and importers to redesign relatively small quantities of vehicles for the Canadian market.

Honda recommends that ECCC remove DBDPE from the proposed changes to the PCTSR at this time and continues to engage with stakeholders and other jurisdictions in order to promote an orderly evaluation of, and transition from, DBDPE when a viable alternative is identified. We expect this to take up to fifteen years to complete.

As part of our Notice of Objection, we request that the Minister establish a Board of Review to ensure that the nature and extent of the danger posed by DBDPE has been assessed in comparison to the potential impact on vehicle design and the viability of the automotive industry in Canada.

We look forward to working with ECCC on a transition plan to ensure that replacement of DBDPE balances environmental and economic impacts. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Jean Marc Leclerc
President and C.E.O.
Honda Canada Inc.

Minister's response

Mr. Jean Marc Leclerc
President and Chief Executive Officer
Honda Canada Inc.
brian_robinson@ch.honda.com; hanif_nori@ch.honda.com; maureen_ramsay@hcm.honda.com

Dear Mr. Leclerc:

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.

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

The following list provides a summary of comments in your Notice of Objection and the responses from the Department:

1. In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that you acknowledge that you are not experts on the underlying science and do not have data to support a review of the science. However, you commented that your Notice of Objection is based on the lack of consideration given to the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed risk management for DBDPE.

Please refer to the points 2, 3, 4 and 5 (below), regarding the technical and economic feasibility of the prohibition and challenges associated with eliminating DBDPE in your products.

2. In your Notice of Objection, you commented 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.

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. In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that due to the lack of available drop-in alternatives, technical feasibility and impacts to domestic manufacturing and investment and that the proposed timeline of five years, plus potentially three annual permitted extensions, is insufficient to complete this transition. In addition, you commented that the prohibition of DBDPE proposed in Canada poses a challenge to global supply chains and that the short timeline and unique to Canada proposed exemption for DBDPE may cause significant harm to Canadian automotive sector manufacturing and sales, including the emerging electric vehicle industry subsector. Furthermore, you commented that the transition from DBDPE to a viable alternative for the automotive sector will take up to 15 years to complete.

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

The permit process is intended to deal with unforeseen challenges at the coming into force, for activities that are not covered by an exemption. When there are known challenges, exemptions have been included under the Regulations. Permits are not required for activities that are exempted following the coming into force of the 2025 Regulations and are not intended to extend the time-limited exemptions already granted in the proposed Regulations.

4. In your Notice of Objection, you noted that Canada is alone in identifying DBDPE as a substance requiring risk management, making the Canadian vehicle industry an outlier in the global marketplace. 

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 recommended the removal of DBDPE from the proposed Regulations at this time.

The DBDPE screening assessment concludes that DBDPE is toxic, persistent and results predominantly from human activities and that DBDPE is expected to contribute to the formation of persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic transformation products, such as lower brominated diphenyl ethanes, in the environment. As such, at the time the risk management approach for DBDPE was published, DBDPE met the criteria outlined in the Government of Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy for virtual elimination from the environment (Canada, 1995).

Upon the coming into force of the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act (S.C. 2023, c. 12) in June 2023, the virtual elimination provisions of CEPA were replaced with a new regime that remains risk based. In developing a proposed regulation or instrument respecting preventive or control actions in relation to substances added to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, priority will be given to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of activities in relation to the substance or of releases of the substance into the environment. For substances added to Part 2 of Schedule 1, priority will be given to pollution prevention actions, which may include prohibition, when managing risks posed by those substances. 

An Order adding DBDPE to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on February 26, 2025.

As indicated in the risk management approach for DBDPE, the environmental objective for DBDPE is to reduce its concentrations in the Canadian environment to the greatest extent practicable, and the risk management objective for DBDPE is to achieve the lowest level of release of the substance into the Canadian environment, taking into account social, economic and technical matters.

The high importation volumes of DBDPE into Canada, along with information on its uses, indicate potential for widespread release into the Canadian environment. Aquatic exposure to DBDPE is expected through activities such as formulation, either directly to receiving surface water or to a wastewater treatment system that discharges its effluent to a receiving surface water body. In addition, products containing DBDPE have the potential to release DBDPE at various stages of their lifecycle, including use (see house dust studies referred to in Section 10.1.1.2 and Appendix D of the DBDPE screening assessment) and disposal. Once released into the environment, DBDPE will be found mainly in sediment and soil, where it may persist for long periods of time, resulting in DBDPE build-up, as seen by rapid doubling times in sediment in the Great Lakes. 

Given the above, regulatory prohibition is the best approach to meet the risk management objective for DBDPE, which is to achieve the lowest level of release of the substance into the Canadian environment, taking into account social, economic and technical matters.