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

Minister's response to Mazda Canada Inc.

Notice of objection

July 13, 2022
Attn: The Honorable Minister of Environment & Climate Change Canada, Steven Guilbeault
c/o Chrisina Paradiso
Sent via E-Mail to : ec.interdiction-prohibition.ec@ec.gc.ca

Re: Notice of Objection and Request for Board of Review in relation to proposed regulations prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale, and import of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE, CAS Registry Number 84852-53-9)

Mazda Corporation is a Japanese automaker based in Hiroshima, Japan, that prides itself on its innovative solutions to meet the challenges of the automotive industry. Mazda in Canada is represented by 163 independently owned, franchised Mazda dealers totaling over 4,000 employees. Mazda directly employs in Canada through an Ontario head office, two regional offices, and two parts distribution centers. It also has a large network of downstream indirect employment, including dealership partners, marketing partners, and other vendors and suppliers. Mazda sales have averaged approximately 75,000 vehicles annually in recent years.

Mazda is submitting this comment to state that it shares the opinions in, and has participated in, the comment submission of the Global Automakers of Canada, which is appended to this email. Separately, we wish to further provide context and reinforce Mazda’s primary concerns which are:

1. The Canada-unique decision to regulate and prohibit this chemical.

2. The lack of adequate timelines proposed for the regulatory action.

1. Mazda is a small, independent global player in the automotive industry and thus is severely hindered by regulations or restrictions that are unique to a single country. Canada is Mazda’s 5^th largest global market and benefits greatly in its design process from alignment in regulatory activity in the greater North American market. Vehicles for Canada are most often built to the same standards as the much larger US market so a misalignment of this nature. As such, Mazda is concerned with the misalignment from – or the seeming lack of interaction with - the international review bodies or the internationally recognized mechanisms to regulate and/or prohibit chemicals, which seems common for other chemicals regulated or prohibited by ECCC.

2. In regards to the proposed timelines, Mazda understands from our investigations that 5 years of lead time to find alternatives to DBDPE for application in new vehicles is impossibly restrictive. We are seeking 15 years of exemption for new vehicles. It is Mazda’s opinion that while 10 years may have been sought by the industry in previous comments during ECCC’s multiple consultations for DBDPE, further information received from chemicals industries and other stakeholders suggests 15 years are required. This aligns better with the increasingly longer average product design and development cycles that the automotive industry is likely to experience in the coming years due to a number of factors. Increasing vehicle complexity and increased costs associated with the changes in the type of vehicles and their propulsion systems due to severe environmental regulations put upward pressure of vehicle development costs. ECCC should consider that many factors affecting the length of development cycles of vehicles and parts have drastically changed in recent years and will continue to change for the foreseeable future. The auto industry in Canada and North America has been experiencing an increasing preference for larger vehicles which is likely to continue, and the shift to electrified powertrains with more (and more complex) ADAS & connectivity technologies are all factors which make vehicles more expensive and thus tend to extend development cycles.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our comments and sincerely welcome any opportunities to further discuss the content of this submission, or other matters of Mazda’s business in the future should it be required.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Mazda Canada Inc.

Daniel Grenier
National Manager, Technical Services

Confidential treatment is requested pursuant to access to information legislation. The information in this letter is being provided on a confidential basis and may contain trade secrets or confidential financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, the disclosure of which could, among other things, significantly harm Mazda’s competitive position, result in undue financial loss to Mazda (or gain to its competitors) and result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques.

Appendix - Comment submission of the Global Automakers of Canada

July 13, 2022
The Honorable 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 and Request for Board of Review in relation to proposed regulations* prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale and import of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE, CAS Registry No. 84852-53-9)

*Canada Gazette,  Part I, Volume 156, Number 20 – May 14, 2022: Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022

Dear Minister Guilbeault:

Global Automakers of Canada (GAC) is the national trade association representing the Canadian interests of 15 of the world’s most respected automakers. Our members include BMW Canada Inc, Honda Canada Inc., Hyundai Auto Canada Corp., Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC, Kia Canada Inc., Maserati Canada Inc., Mazda Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc., Nissan Canada Inc., Porsche Cars Canada Ltd., Subaru Canada, Inc., Toyota Canada Inc., Volkswagen Group Canada Inc., and Volvo Car Canada Ltd. Together our members represent more than 25 brands, which in 2021 sold almost 1,016,000 vehicles representing 62% of the Canadian automotive market. In addition, 65% of the vehicles built in Canada were produced by GAC members Honda Canada (Alliston, ON) and Toyota Canada (Cambridge and Woodstock, ON), with fully 58% of the vehicles sold by member companies in Canada having been built in the NAFTA region, demonstrating a commitment to “building where they sell”.

Global Automakers of Canada is taking the extraordinary step of submitting this Notice of Objection to the regulatory proposal published in the Canada Gazette on May 14^th, 2022, which includes, amongst the proposed amendments to the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, very targeted measures against the manufacture, use, sale and import of DBDPE.

The proposed risk management measures as set out in the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (the “draft Regulation”) for DBDPE are not replicated elsewhere in the world, and far exceed anything thus far proposed in terms of banning of the substance from manufacture and commerce. The automotive industry has made a consistent effort over the past three or more years to make it known to the department the critical importance of this substance to industry; DBDPE is a vital and broadly used additive to many materials in use in automobiles and automotive parts and provide protection from fire to drivers and occupants in hundreds of millions of vehicles worldwide.

The proposed restrictions on the other named substances notwithstanding, the measures concerning DBDPE are wholly incompatible with the current state of global usage which is very broad. Our primary concerns, which underpin our filing this Notice of Objection (as provided for by section 332(2) of CEPA 1999) and request for formation of a Board of Review to inquire into the risks posed by DBDPE and the appropriateness of the respective proposed amendments to the PCTSRs (pursuant to section 333 of CEPA 1999) are outlined below (with detail to follow):

• Potential for severe negative impact to public safety as a result of lack of available substitutes
• Insufficient timelines to develop, qualify and implement potential substitutes in volume to address a broad scope of applications
• Proposed permitting process is not adequate to address lack of viable alternatives to DBDPE
• Trade and supply-chain disruption arising from global non-alignment caused by decision to pursue independent Risk Management measures

Potential for severe negative impact to public safety as a result of lack of available substitutes

DBDPE performs a valuable function by reducing the flammability of the products where it is used. Automobiles and automotive parts that contain this substance do so because, in the absence of the chemical, there is an increased risk of fire that could result in injury or death to vehicle occupants and/or other road users which may be involved in an incident.

Automobiles are manufactured in accordance with application-specific performance standards, including flammability of interior materials (Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 302 – Flammability of Interior Materials) and an array of standards governing electrical componentry, of which there is an ever-increasing quantity in vehicles. As vehicles evolve further into platforms for lifestyle mobility, electrically driven, the  mass of electronics and wiring will likely continue to grow and, with it, the need for effective flame  retardants. A sensible transition plan that preserves the safety of vehicle owners and occupants while substitutes are adequately researched and tested is necessary.

In consideration of the measures being proposed for DBDPE, it is important to take note of the risk management measures already introduced for chemicals that have performed similar functions in the past and likewise been phased out, though largely in alignment with global agreements and regulations. Two such examples, HBCD and the PBDE known as decaBDE have been subject to restrictions in manufacture, use, and commerce over the past decade, and the phase-out of these substances has forced manufacturers to rely increasingly on chlorinated and brominated flame retardants such as DP and DBDPE, respectively. With DP being removed from commerce, the stable of known flame retardants which are available to manufacturers and qualified for use in various applications is growing increasingly small and the process to find alternatives becoming increasingly challenging. Those alternatives that may be able to fill the gap in some applications are likely to require a much higher loading factor and this will result in increased material weight as well as – potentially - negatively impacting other material properties.

Last, a particular concern with the regulatory proposal concerns the statement in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that “there is the potential for bioaccumulation of DP and of DBDPE’s transformation products (i.e., lower brominated diphenyl ethanes) in wildlife, such as whales and seals”. The determination to use decaBDE as a structural analogue for DBDPE does not – according to our chemical partners – appear to have broad support in empirical research. Establishing this “potential” as fact appears, to us, to have been overlooked as an important step preceding the implementation of a ban with fire safety implications for vehicle occupants.

Insufficient timelines to develop, qualify and implement potential substitutes in volume to address a broad scope of applications

Each manufacturer has thousands of parts affected by the proposed regulations, with applications including, but not limited to wiring, tape adhesives, seat foams, and lacquer on labels and cables. There are, at present,  no other alternatives to DBDPE that offer the same level of flame retardancy, at the given substance loading,  while possessing comparable electrical resistance, physical properties, and processing advantages. Additionally, alternatives always carry their own set of performance limitations and risks, and it is the balance of risks that must be well-understood and carefully managed when there are other competing safety priorities such as with respect to fire safety.

In the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, ECCC suggests that its consultations with industry stakeholders have led to the proposed permits and exemptions that would address the lack of available alternatives to DBDPE. However, as our members and their supply chain partners would be the source of such information, and as no comprehensive picture has yet been developed concerning the consequential costs of the proposed risk management measures to our industry (owing, in large part to the enormous complexity of obtaining such information across the global supply chain where DBDPE use is not actively monitored), we have concerns as to the accuracy of this statement.

The timelines for qualifying substitute candidates on a part-by-part basis for integration into production plans  of new models and, critically, existing models, is much longer than the 5-year exemption window being proposed for new vehicles (less than the development cycle for a single model). Even if a compound were identified as a candidate substitute for each of the tens of thousands of related parts, it would not only have to pass the flammability resistance test but also be qualified more broadly for the application. Vehicle parts must be developed and tested to meet engineering specifications, and then the systems developed and tested to ensure that they meet not only the company’s engineering spec, but also satisfy certification requirements (i.e., crash testing performance) of various global regulatory regimes. Once approved, the new substance must be integrated into the production pipeline, which becomes even more complex for product lines already established and takes engineering resources away from the development of newer, safer vehicles. Figure 1 in the Appendix to this letter illustrates the scope of consideration for evaluating new chemicals.

In the past, our guidance to government on chemical substance phase out has been 10 years for new products; however, with no existing regulatory action against DBDPE elsewhere in the world, 15 years is required to substitute DBDPE in new vehicle production to ensure adequate time to research and implement a substitute with minimal supply chain disruption. For a graphical illustration of the automotive timeline for chemicals substitution, please refer to Figure 2 in the Appendix to this letter.

Proposed permitting process not adequate to address lack of viable alternatives to DBDPE

The proposed permitting process is not workable for the automotive industry; the requirement for obtaining a permit is very burdensome from an administrative standpoint when considering the exceedingly high number of specific parts that would need to be independently tested and permitted under such a system. It is very difficult to peg the combined administrative, testing and development, and per/vehicle costs for qualifying and integrating a suitable alternative to DBDPE, but it is likely to have an impact in the billions of dollars when measured across the entire sector, it’s OEMs and supplier base.

Additionally, ECCC has indicated through the public consultation process that the permitting mechanism is not applicable for uses which have been granted an extension within the proposed rule. Automotive OEMs would therefore not be able to avail themselves of this mechanism for the purpose of additional development time.

Trade and supply-chain disruption arising from global non-alignment caused by decision to pursue independent Risk Management measures

Automobile manufacturers operate in a global regulatory environment and the scope of use of DBDPE in the  industry is such that it cannot be substituted across the length and breadth of the global supply chain without a substantial lead time for new parts and new vehicles, as well as replacement parts. These components are not only entering Canada in volume but being produced here as well and exported either for final assembly or as part of another finishing process that could see the part returned to Canada again. A short lead ban on DBDPE means OEMs may be faced with a decision to stockpile parts rather than produce them in accordance with real-time production estimates for the production lifecycle of affected models; this is itself not beneficial to the environment. A poorly timed phaseout would also likely result in Canada-unique specifications for vehicle assembly (impacting vehicle availability and costs to the Canadian consumer) and disrupt movement of parts that often cross the border multiple times for successive operations.

In North America, the philosophy of Canada-US alignment on vehicle emissions and safety standards is a cornerstone of the industry’s viability. The Canada-US-Mexico Agreement obliges parties to the agreement to not introduce unnecessary barriers to trade, but to make efforts to align risk-assessment methodologies and risk management measures for chemical substances. We therefore are very concerned with the department’s willingness to expose the Canadian industry to such an enormous commercial risk by moving independently to restrict DBDPE. At present, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is not proposing either Risk Assessment or Risk Management of DBDPE; on the global front, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is similarly absent of DBDPE with respect to the chemicals listed in its Annexes. A global approach to chemicals management is critical to the automotive industry, as it is with other industries that operate in a global regulatory environment that governs design, production, certification, in-use testing, distribution, end of life and other product safety considerations. We therefore urge the government to make its arguments for DBDPE’s removal from commerce to international forums for establishing such global agreements, such as the Stockholm Convention.

To summarize, our members are greatly concerned with the proposed regulatory Risk Management measures for DBDPE. It is not sufficient to simply “hope” that industry will come up with a viable alternative to DBDPE, while putting an effective end to its use over a very short timeline in the context of vehicle development cycles. Automobiles are highly complex manufactured items under CEPA 1999 and, as the industry has made clear on many previous occasions, there is a responsibility on the part of the government to ensure that viable alternatives exist for industry to use that will allow them to fulfill their other regulatory obligations.

Given the current lack of available alternatives for DBDPE and unknown costs of compliance with the regulatory proposal, we urge the department to revise its risk management approach in regulating DBDPE to, first, engage other jurisdictions in global-focused chemicals management approach and, secondly, ensure the industry has adequate time to work with its supply chain partners to properly develop and implement workable alternatives.

We thank you for your consideration of the arguments set out above, and request that the Minister appoint a Board of Review to inquire into the risks posed by DBDPE and the appropriateness of the respective proposed amendments to the PCTSRs.

Sincerely,

Greg Overwater, P.Eng
Senior Director – Safety, Innovation and Regulation

Appendix

Figure 1. Summary of typical minimum design and production considerations when qualifying a new chemical substance to substitute in an existing chemical in an automotive application.

Figure 2. Illustration of comparative timelines for phaseout of flame retardants in broad use in the Automotive Industry.

Minister's response

Mr. Daniel Grenier
National Manager, Technical Services
Mazda Canada Inc.
cspivak6@mazda.ca; dgrenie2@mazda.ca; okida.m@mazda.co.jp;
rmurdoch@mazda.ca; slemaitr@mazda.ca

Dear Mr. Grenier:

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 14, 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 Annex A of 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 two Annexes, where Annex A includes my responses to comments you provided and Annex B includes my responses to comments provided by the Global Automakers of Canada (which was included with your Notice of Objection submission). 

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 Annexes 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 A

The following provides a summary of comments provided in your Notice of Objection and my responses to those comments:

1. In your Notice of Objection, you noted that there is no prohibition of DBDPE in other world-wide jurisdictions and the Canada-unique proposed prohibition for DBDPE is misaligned with international review bodies and mechanisms to regulate and/or prohibit chemicals. 

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) 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, the European Chemicals Agency (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.

2. In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that the proposed exemption timelines are restrictive, and a minimum of 15 years is required to switch to an alternative substance to align with the increasing longer product design and development cycles. In addition, you comment that increased vehicle complexity, the shift to electrified powertrains, more and more complex technologies and environmental regulations increases the costs of vehicles and development cycles.

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.

Annex B

1) In your Notice of Objection, you requested that I appoint a board of review to investigate and consider the risks posed by DBDPE and the appropriateness of the respective proposed amendments to the PCTSR with respect to: Impact to public safety due to the unavailability of appropriate substitutes; Insufficient timelines for to develop, qualify and implement potential substitutes in volume to address broad scope of applications; Proposed permitting process is not adequate to address lack of viable alternatives to DBDPE; and, Trade and supply-chain disruption arising from global non-alignment caused by decision to pursue independent risk management measures.

Please refer to the responses to points 2, 3 and 4 (below) regarding the DBDPE exemptions.

2) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Potential for severe negative impact to public safety as a result of lack of available substitutes” 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 flame retardant to meet critical flammability standards and safety requirements in products such as motor vehicles and that DBDPE was used as a substitute for HBCD and decaBDE, which were phased out in alignment with global agreements and regulations. It is important to take note of the risk management measures already introduced.

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.

2B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that the determination to use decaBDE as a structural analogue for DBDPE does not – according to our chemical partners – appear to have broad support in empirical research.

The use of analogues and read-across in risk assessment, much like decaBDE is used in the DBDPE screening assessment, is well established and internationally recognized. Canada’s approach to the use of analogues and read-across in risk assessment ^{Footnote 1.0}  is consistent with OECD Guidance^{Footnote 2.0}  and the approaches used in other jurisdictions, including by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)^{Footnote 3.0} .  

DecaBDE is considered to be a suitably close analogue for DBDPE given the high degree of structural and functional similarities between the two substances, and the availability of relevant empirical information. In addition to Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and Sweden utilized decaBDE as an analogue substance in their respective assessments of the target substance DBDPE^{Footnote 4.0} .

Structural and functional similarities between substances have typically translated to similarities in environmental fate, behaviour, and other properties. It is noted that some differences in molecular makeup, dimensions, and configurations exist between DBDPE and decaBDE that may affect the manner in which these molecules interact with their environment; however, these differences are well within what is typical for analogue - target differences found in regulatory risk assessments. In fact, three different jurisdictions selected decaBDE as an analog for DBDPE: the UK in 2007, Canada in 2019 and Sweden in 2024.

The abundance of empirical data on decaBDE also factored into its selection as the most appropriate analogue for DBDPE. Expert judgement is applied in this process, where chemical properties and the various empirically known properties, fate or behaviour of decaBDE is read-across to DBDPE on a case-by-case (e.g., per endpoint or property) basis rather than in an absolute manner, taking into consideration the suitability and comparability of these attributes.

3) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Insufficient timelines to develop, qualify and implement potential substitutes in volume to address broad scope of applications” and “Proposed permitting process not adequate to address lack of viable alternatives to DBDPE” 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 existing alternatives are not suitable due to: required higher loading rates, lower levels of performance, and/or impact negatively on final use and that you disagree with the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that the proposed permits and exemptions are sufficient for stakeholders due to the lack of available alternatives for DBDPE in some products and complexity of obtaining information in the global supply chain where DBDPE use is not monitored. In addition, you commented that global product manufacturers take into consideration regulatory, design, performance requirements which are addressed through a complex global supply chain for components and subcomponents and significant time and costs are associated with switching to alternatives which require research and development, prototyping, performance testing, manufacturing retooling, and regulatory compliance certification. Furthermore, you commented a minimum of 15 years is required to switch to an alternative substance with minimal supply chain disruption and that the proposed permitting system is not suitable for the automotive sector due to administrative burden.  

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) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Trade and supply-chain disruption arising from global non-alignment caused by decision to pursue independent Risk Management measures” as set out in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

4A) In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that automobile manufacturers operate in global regulatory environment and a substantial lead-time is needed to substitute DBDPE across the length and breadth of the global supply chain. In addition, you commented that a poorly timed phaseout would impact vehicle availability and costs to the Canadian consumer and disrupt the cross-border movement of parts.  

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

4B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) obliges parties to not introduce unnecessary barriers to trade but to align risk-assessment methodologies and risk management measures for chemical substances.

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.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the 2025 Regulations that contravenes the USMCA Agreement given that the addition of DBDPE to the Regulations reflects a risk-based approach based on the conclusion of the screening assessment of DBDPE.

4C) In your Notice of Objection, you noted that there will be global non-alignment caused by a decision to pursue independent risk management measures and the prohibition of DBDPE proposed in Canada poses a risk to Canadian industry. In addition, you commented that DBDPE is not listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention nor proposed for assessment or new restriction by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, you commented that a global approach (such as the Stockholm Convention) to chemicals management is critical to the automotive industry.

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.