Key Summary

• EPA opened a 60-day comment period in March 2021 to gather industry input on risk management rules for five PBT chemicals: PIP (3:1), DecaBDE, 2,4,6-TTBP, HCBD, and PCTP
• EPA also issued a 180-day No Action Assurance to delay enforcement of prohibitions affecting PIP (3:1), giving industry time to assess supply chain impacts
• IPC is collecting detailed, anonymized information from electronics manufacturers to provide a unified industry response to EPA
• The request for information covers company roles, specific uses of PBTs, concentrations, exposure risks, alternatives, and timelines for phase-out
• Accurate industry input is essential for EPA to design realistic compliance timeframes and workable risk-management strategies

On March 16, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a 60-day comment period to collect information from stakeholders on the final risk management rules to reduce exposure to five different persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs). In addition, the EPA issued a temporary 180-day “No Action Assurance” to ensure enforcement discretion is given regarding prohibitions that were set to take effect on March 8, 2021, on the processing and distribution of phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) – referred to as PIP (3:1) – and articles to which PIP (3:1) has been added.

This request for information aims to bring together industry information on the manufacturing (including import), processing, or distribution of these five PBTs or articles containing these PBTs in the electronics manufacturing supply chain. We are issuing this request to harmonize the response from industry and efficiently consolidate information for submission to the EPA in response to the 60-day comment period. The electronics manufacturing supply chain has an opportunity to collect and provide information to the EPA to ensure the updated final rule provides realistic risk mitigation strategies and timelines to implement these strategies. The specific provisions outlined in the final rule will protect human health and the environment by addressing risks and reducing exposures to PBT chemicals to the extent practicable. Without industry input, the EPA will be unable to create realistic risk management strategies.

All information that is received by IPC as a result of this request will be aggregated and anonymized.

What are the five PBTs being regulated under TSCA?

• Phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)) (CAS Number 68937-41-7) is used as a flame-retardant, plasticizer, and anti-wear additive or an anti-compressibility additive in hydraulic and lubricating oils, lubricants, greases, and adhesives and sealants. PIP (3:1) remains mostly unregulated by existing global chemical and product regulations and, therefore, companies manufacturing or importing articles have only recently begun the process of identifying PIP (3:1) in their supply chains.
• Decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) (CAS Number 1163-19-5) is used as an additive flame retardant in plastic enclosures and is commonly found in wire and cable rubber casings, textiles, building and construction materials, and aerospace and automotive parts.
• 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP) (CAS Number 732-26-3) is commonly found in fuel additives, fuel injector cleaners and oil and lubricants.
• Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) (CAS Number 87-68-3) is used as a solvent in rubber manufacturing and in hydraulic, heat transfer or transformer fluid.
• Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP) (CAS Number 133-49-3) is found in rubber products and it is used to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses.

Request for Information

The request for information applies to all five PBT chemicals:

• PIP (3:1), 68937-41-7
• DecaBDE, 1163-19-5
• 2,4,6-TTBP, 732-26-3
• HCBD, 87-68-3
• PCTP, 133-49-3

We do not require any reporting format for your response, we only request that you provide feedback by April 16. IPC Contact: Kelly Scanlon, +1 202 661-8091.

Please respond to the following questions with detailed information. Without detailed information, IPC will be unable to provide adequate comments to the EPA and the EPA is unlikely to establish practicable compliance timeframes for industry.

All information that is received by IPC from this request will be aggregated and anonymized.

1. Please tell us more about your company.  Include NAICS code(s).

• Original equipment manufacturer
• Electronics manufacturing services and assemblers
• Printed Circuit Board manufacturer
• Cable and wire harness manufacturer
• Electronics industry parts and components supplier
• Formulator
• Other

2. What is your role? (And, please tell us which of the five PBT chemicals apply)

• My company does not process or distribute any of the five PBT chemicals or any PBT-containing articles in the U.S.
• My company is processing a PBT chemical or a PBT-containing article in the U.S. (Please tell us which of the five PBT chemicals apply)
• My company is a formulator and uses a PBT chemical in its formulations made in the U.S.
• My company is a formulator and uses a PBT chemical in its formulations and imports them to the U.S.
• My company is distributing a PBT chemical or a PBT-containing article in the U.S.
• My company is importing a PBT chemical or a PBT-containing article into the U.S.

3. Please provide a description of each article(s), component(s), or part(s) that contain a PBT chemical.

• Include a detailed description of the location of the PBT chemical.
• Indicate whether the part or component is used for B2B or B2C products or in manufacturing/industrial applications.
• The percentage of PBT-containing article/component/part compared to the total amount of similar article/component/part. (For example, are all cables in your product line made using this chemical or just certain types of cables?)

4. Functionality

• Function of PBT chemical in the article/component/part (e.g., plasticizer, flame retardant, adhesive/sealant).
• Is there an industry standard or specification that requires this function for this article/component/part?  Please list and provide links to standards/specifications. If yes, does the standard/specification require the use of the PBT chemical specifically?

5. Concentration

• The concentration (parts per million) of the PBT chemical in the article/component/part. Please provide information for each level, if available (e.g., article vs. component vs. part). (A range can be provided.)

6. Exposure

• Assessment or likelihood of consumer exposure to the PBT chemical via the article.
• Assessment or likelihood of worker exposure to the PBT chemical during processing. Are there workplace health and safety programs in place?

7. Releases

• Is the PBT chemical released into the environment during the manufacturing process or use of the PBT-containing part or component in the industrial setting?
• Assessment or likelihood that the PBT chemical is released into the environment during manufacturing of the article/component/part?  During routine/normal use?

8. Alternatives

• The name of the chemistries that are used or that are available for use as an alternate for the PBT chemical in the article/component/part.
• The concentration (parts per million) of the alternative chemical(s) in the article/component/part. (A range can be provided.)

9. Please provide detailed information on what occurs at each stage of the chemical phase out process.

• Procurement and Assessment of Substitute Parts with Suppliers (6 months)
• Internal Quality Assessments (3 months)
• Quality and Safety Certification (6 months)
  • Include a listing of the quality and safety certification standards to which articles are certified).
  • If possible, provide a letter from the certifying body confirming the certification timeline.
• Supplier Coordination and Manufacturing Changes (6 months)
• Shipment, Import and Distribution in US (3 months)

10. Please provide additional information regarding known or expected impacts to the supply chain if the PBT chemical is prohibited and no longer available for domestic processing and distribution including in articles.

Additional Resources

• Request for Comment on the five PBT rules from 16 March
• EPA Press Release on 60-day Comment Period from 8 March
• Final rule for decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE)
• Final rule for phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1))
• Final rule for 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP)
• Final rule for hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)
• Final rule for pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP)
• IPC blog post on this subject from 12 March
• IPC blog post on this subject from 1 March

Key Summary

• EPA opened a 60-day public comment period to gather more input on the PIP (3:1) final risk management rule and four other PBT rules
• EPA seeks data on whether the rules adequately reduce exposure and whether compliance dates or mitigation measures should change
• Companies handling PIP (3:1) must notify customers about pending prohibitions and related requirements
• EPA issued a temporary 180-day No Action Assurance for certain industries affected by PIP (3:1) restrictions
• IPC will collect industry information and coordinate engagement throughout the review process

As of March 8, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a request for additional public input on the PIP (3:1) final risk management rule and four other final risk management rules for other persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.

The EPA is opening a 60-day comment period to encourage submission of data and information on whether the five final rules sufficiently reduce exposure to these chemicals, whether to consider additional or alternative risk mitigation measures or approaches, and whether new compliance dates are needed for certain regulated articles containing PIP (3:1).

Even though the EPA is re-examining the content of the final rules, companies manufacturing, processing, or distributing PIP (3:1)-containing articles in commerce should notify their customers in the supply chain about the pending prohibitions on processing and distribution as well as requirements regarding releases to water and recordkeeping.

The EPA will use the feedback received during the 60-day comment period to determine the best path forward. IPC will continue to work with the electronics manufacturing industry, peer electronics associations, and across sectors as needed to ensure that we are collecting the data and information that will enable the EPA to determine the best path forward.

In addition to the comment period, the EPA is issuing a temporary 180-day “No Action Assurance” regarding enforcement discretion on the March 8 prohibitions on processing and distribution of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing articles. The No Action Assurance is focused on electronics, electronic components, electrical equipment and components, home appliances, manufacturing equipment for semiconductors, heavy equipment, and several others, that is, it is not inclusive of all articles nor is it permanent.

IPC will continue to monitor and engage on this policy activity. IPC will likely coordinate a call for information in response to the request from the EPA. Please contact me if you have information regarding the five PBTs and the final rules.

Key Summary

• The European Parliament advanced due diligence recommendations for upcoming EU legislation
• Companies would need to address human rights, environmental harm, and governance risks across full value chains
• Requirements would scale based on risk likelihood, severity, sector, and company size
• Non-EU companies would also need to comply to access the EU internal market
• The resolution supports liability, fines, reparations, and bans on products linked to severe abuses

On March 10, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution with recommendations on the future of due diligence legislation in Europe.

This is an important step toward a legislative proposal that is expected from the European Commission in June. (See October 16, 2020 IPC blog post.)

The resolution states that companies should identify, address and remedy aspects of their entire value chain (e.g., all operations, direct or indirect business relations, or investment chains) that could or do:

• Infringe on human rights (including social, trade union and labour rights);
• Harm the environment (contributing to climate change or deforestation, for example); and/or
• Infringe on good governance (such as corruption and bribery). 

Importantly, due diligence is stressed as a proportionate activity based on the likelihood and severity of the impacts, the sector of activity, the size and length of the value chain, and the size of the undertaking.

Companies that want to access the EU internal market, including those established outside the EU, would have to prove that they comply with environmental and human rights due diligence obligations. The resolution also calls for additional measures, including a ban on imports of products linked to severe human rights violations such as forced or child labor. The report also calls for effective reparations for victims, and for companies to be held liable for their actions and subject to fines for causing or contributing to harm, unless they could prove they had observed due diligence obligations and taken measures to prevent harm.

The exact measures to be proposed by the European Commission as part of broader measures on corporate sustainable governance are currently under deliberation in Brussels, following industry consultations. In those consultations, IPC called for measures that are both effective in combatting the issues of concern and workable for electronics manufacturers; providing legal certainty, “reasonable” tier liability, and a light administrative burden.

The devil will now be in the details of the pending proposal, with questions remaining over, among other things, scope and liability (including the proportionality principle), expectations for environmental due diligence, as well as how EU-level obligations will interact with a spate of national-level measures, including a German supply-chain law currently nearing completion

For further information, contact me at AlisonJames@ipc.org.