Notice of objection filed by Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to Mercedes-Benz 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: interdiction-prohibition@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)

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

Dear Minister Guilbeault:

Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. (“MBC”) 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 enacted elsewhere in the world, and far exceed anything thus far proposed in terms of banning the substance from manufacture and entering the stream of commerce. The automotive industry has made considerable and consistent efforts over the past three or more years to advise and stress to the department the critical importance of this substance to this industry. DBDPE is a vital and broadly used additive in many materials used in automobiles and automotive parts and provides vital protection from fire to vehicle 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 serve as the basis for 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 investigate and consider 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):

• 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
• 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 products and materials where it is used. Automobiles and automotive parts that contain this substance do so because, in the absence of the same, in the event of a vehicle fire, there is an increased risk of injury or death to vehicle occupants and/or other road users who may be involved in such 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 components, for which there is an ever-increasing quantity in vehicles. As vehicles evolve further into electric platforms and lifestyle mobility, the use of electronics and electrical wiring will 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, developed and tested is essential.

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 the stream of commerce, the number of flame retardants available to manufacturers and qualified for use in various applications is growing increasingly small and the process to find alternatives is concurrently 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 impact 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; we believe it is incumbent of the proponents of the aforementioned belief to prove such “potential” as fact indeed. Further that proof, should precede implementation of a ban that can have fire safety implications for vehicle occupants.

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

Hundreds of thousands of parts are 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 resistance, at the given substance loading, while possessing comparable electrical resistance, physical  properties, and processing advantages.Additionally, alternatives also carry 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 we would understand our supply chain partners to 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 the automobile industry -- in large part due 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 veracity of and practical basis for this statement.

The timeframe 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 hundreds of thousands of related parts, that compound would not only have to pass the flammability resistance test but also it would be required to qualify 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 the manufacturer’s engineering specifications and also vehicle certification requirements (i.e. crash testing performance) imposed by a myriad of global regulatory regimes. Once approved, the new substance must be integrated into the production pipeline, which becomes all the more complex for product lines already established and potentially takes scarce engineering resources from the development and improvement of newer, safer vehicles.

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.

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 state with any certainty the combined administrative, testing and development, and per/vehicle costs for qualifying and integrating a suitable alternative to DBDPE, but we believe the cost is likely to have an impact in the billions of dollars when measured across the entire sector, including OEMs and their supplier base.

Additionally, ECCC has indicated through the public consultation process that the permitting mechanism is not applicable for uses that 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. 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 are 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 maybe 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 phase-out 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 that agreement not to introduce unnecessary barriers to trade, but to make efforts to align risk-assessment methodologies and risk management measures for chemical substances, (among other things). We are, therefore, very concerned about the potential exposure of the Canadian industry to such an enormous commercial risk by Canada’s 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 which governs design, production, certification, in-use testing, distribution, end of life and other product safety considerations.

To summarize, MBC has serious concerns with the proposed regulatory Risk Management measures for DBDPE. We do not believe it is realistic to hope that the automotive 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 products 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 this industry to use and 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 revisit 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 consider the risks posed by DBDPE and the appropriateness of the respective proposed amendments to the PCTSRs.

Sincerely,

Reed Mascola
National Manager, Government & Regulatory Affairs
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.

Minister's response

Mr. Reed Mascola
National Manager, Government and Regulatory Affairs
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.
reed.mascola@mercedes-benz.ca
allie.ho@mercedes-benz.ca

Dear Mr. Mascola:

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 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 points 2, 3 and 4 (below), regarding the above concerns with the proposed Risk Management for DBDPE.

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 there was insufficient evidence provided in the assessment to support that decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) is an appropriate analogue for decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE).

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) in 2007 and Sweden in 2024 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

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, 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, and by 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 a 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.