The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is wading ever deeper into regulatory deliberations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the next several steps will have major ramifications for electronics manufacturers, who need to focus on this issue now.

As previously reported by IPC, the EPA’s process for assessing and managing risks from existing chemicals has three basic steps: prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management.

Currently, there are two cycles of this three-step process happening at the same time, for two different sets of existing chemicals. In the first cycle, EPA is nearing the completion of 10 risk evaluations; in the second cycle, EPA is just beginning the risk evaluations for 20 more high-priority chemical substances.

Just over the horizon, the EPA will begin to consider and then propose actual risk management strategies for the first 10 of these chemicals. By law, the EPA is required to take action to address such risks within two years after a risk evaluation is published, which means 2021 and 2022 will be full of related actions.

Which Chemicals Are We Talking About?

From June 2020 through mid-January 2021, the EPA has published 10 final risk evaluations, and in four cases, it identified unreasonable risks to health and/or the environment in connection with chemicals used in electronic manufacturing and products:

• For methylene chloride (CAS 75-09-2), the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical as a solvent in industrial processes where electronics equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing takes place presents an unreasonable risk of injury to workers and occupational non-users.
• For 1-bromopropane (CAS 106-94-5), the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical as a solvent for cleaning or vapor degreasing in the manufacturing of electrical equipment presents unreasonable risks of injury to workers and occupational non-users.
• For cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster chemicals (CASRN 25637-99-4, 3194-55-6, and 3194-57-8), specifically hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical in solder paste or flux presents an unreasonable risk to the environment.
• For n-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (CAS 872-50-4), the EPA has determined that the use of this chemical in paint and coating additives used in computer and electronic product manufacturing and semiconductor manufacturing and the use of this chemical as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing in semiconductor manufacturing and other electronics manufacturing presents unreasonable risk of injury to worker health.

To manage unreasonable risks, the EPA has several regulatory options at its disposal, including the ability to prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict their manufacture, processing, or distribution for particular uses; to regulate the manner or method of their disposal; to regulate how risks are communicated to consumers and various supply chain actors; and/or to require monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping.

If you have information that is relevant to these proceedings, we need to hear from you. Specifically, if you have information on safe and essential uses; on safe and effective alternatives; or on uses that have been phased out or can be phased out; then now is the time to get ready to work with IPC and engage with the EPA. 

New Rules on PBTs Take Effect on February 5

In addition to the current slate of risk evaluations, the EPA has finalized five final rules for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals to reduce risks and exposures to the extent practicable. The final risk management rules go into effect on February 5, and at least one of the five PBTs has a history of use in the electronics industry.

Decabromodiphenyl-ether (decaBDE) is a flame retardant in plastic enclosures for electronics products and in wire and cables for electronic equipment. The final rule prohibits the manufacture, import, and processing of decaBDE; prohibits its use in products and articles effective 60 days after publication of the final rule; and prohibits distribution in commerce of products and articles containing decaBDE one year after the effective date of the rule.

Throughout the TCSA regulatory process, your IPC Government Relations team will facilitate and coordinate a unified industry response. Ultimately, the EPA needs our knowledge and expertise to arrive at solutions that protect human health and the environment and enable our industry to thrive.

On January 14, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden announced a $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” to change the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The bipartisan relief package that Congress passed in December was a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done, he said.

Among the plan's provisions that may affect our industry's workforce and operations are:

• $50 billion toward Covid-19 testing
• $20 billion toward a national vaccine program in partnership with states, localities and tribes
• Direct payments of $1,400 to most Americans, bringing the total relief to $2,000, including December's $600 payments
• Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour
• Increasing the federal, per-week unemployment benefit to $400 and extending it through the end of September
• Extending the eviction and foreclosure moratoriums until the end of September
• $350 billion in state and local government aid
• $170 billion for K-12 schools and institutions of higher education

The plan is intended to be Biden’s first step in an aggressive, two-step plan for pandemic relief and recovery. Another major initiative, expected in February, will address longer-term goals, including creating jobs, reforming infrastructure, combating climate change, and advancing racial equality.

The 100-Day Outlook

“Joe Biden is entering the White House with an expansive agenda that includes taming the coronavirus, reshaping the economic recovery, overhauling climate policy and rethinking the power of tech companies,” Politico reports.  Read their complete analysis here, and see this blog by IPC’s Chris Mitchell on what Biden’s plans could mean for the electronics manufacturing industry.

One “wild card”: The impeachment trial of outgoing President Trump could create fresh obstacles to moving swiftly on Biden’s priorities.

IPC is working towards scheduling meetings ASAP with incoming administration officials to discuss the critical needs of the U.S. electronics manufacturing industry. Please let us know if you have any input on IPC’s message, and stay tuned for a slew of new proposals and advocacy opportunities in the weeks ahead.

The obligation to submit data on substances of very high concern (SVHC) in articles applies as of January 5.  This obligation applies to all companies placing articles containing SVHCs on the EU market.  Read more here: http://bit.ly/3oKdjVx.

We’re a week-and-a-half into the new requirements and welcome your feedback on usability. Are you submitting through system-to-system or manual methods?  Are you using a centralized or decentralized approach to manage data entry? Do you have the resources to meet the requirements?  We welcome your feedback! Send an e-mail to IPC’s EHS policy and research director, Kelly Scanlon at KellyScanlon@ipc.org.

As global supply chains have grown increasingly complex, policymakers, industry, and civil society have been looking for ways to use supply chain requirements to reduce the negative environmental and social effects of the products we consume.

In Europe, several European Union Member States have already implemented due diligence legislation requiring companies to avoid problems such as forced labor, corruption, discrimination, occupational health and safety violations, and pollution in their supply chains. The European Commission is also preparing a proposal, which would likely introduce EU-wide binding due diligence requirements for all economic sectors, coupled with liability and enforcement mechanisms. 

Meanwhile, the German government is drafting its own due diligence law, known as the Supply Chain Act, which has been delayed due to concerns over liability mechanisms and the economic impact on businesses. The German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the leading partner in Germany's coalition government, has presented a sector-by-sector and company-by-company approach. At the center of its proposal is the implementation of a digital supply chain register, which would list companies that supply EU industries and have a certified, robust, due diligence system in place. As part of the due diligence obligation, companies operating within the EU that meet certain turnover and import volume thresholds would have to ensure they source goods and services from companies in the register. The register would be introduced sector-by-sector, likely starting with the textile and automotive industries. Non-EU suppliers would be incentivized to go through the certification process.

Germany's CDU and the CDU delegation in the European People’s Party, the largest political party in the European Parliament, have shared the idea for a digital supply chain register with EU Commissioner Didier Reynders as the commission drafts its proposal, which is expected in the second quarter of this year. The commission believes that EU-wide legislation would be most effective in addressing this complex issue.

IPC is actively engaging with policymakers to ensure that any upcoming due diligence legislation is feasible for the electronics industry and minimizes the administrative burden for our member companies, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. We are currently preparing an IPC response to the commission’s request for public input. For further information, see this recent IPC blog, and contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

The IPC Global Government Relations team expanded its advocacy efforts in 2020, helping further the competitive excellence and financial success of IPC members.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to adopt new advocacy priorities to help the industry respond to the crisis. But interestingly, the pandemic did not push any of our top policy issues to the backburner. In fact, the pandemic highlighted the importance of one of our key issues, supply chain resiliency, and created an environment ripe for greater executive branch and congressional support. 

Perhaps most importantly, IPC and our members have helped drive an increasing appreciation for the entire ecosystem that supports electronics manufacturing. 

Within this context, here are IPC’s government relations highlights of 2020:    

• Secured a provision in the U.S. FY21 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requiring bare and assembled printed circuit boards used in defense systems to be acquired from trusted sources.
• Secured $10 million in fiscal year 2021 for continuing research and development into the issues related to lead-free electronics in defense, aerospace, and high-performance applications – up from $5 million in FY20. 
• Persuaded the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to stand up a Defense Electronics Consortium (DEC) to help oversee the lead-free electronics R&D project and provide a platform for additional partnerships to address shared DoD-industry challenges. 
• Launched the U.S. Partnership for Assured Electronics (USPAE), a new non-profit, member-led organization, to facilitate U.S. industry engagement with federal agencies, including the DoD. 
• Championed COVID-19 recovery packages. IPC supported reasonable liability protections for businesses, a modified unemployment insurance bonus, the Paycheck Protection Program and related tax credits, and state and local government aid for essential functions. In response to the pandemic, IPC also hosted weekly and then monthly calls with industry executives to facilitate cross-industry collaboration.
• Worked with industry peers to win passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, which will foster continuing growth of the North American supply chain. IPC also proposed and advocated for a North American manufacturing initiative to focus on coordinating pandemic response and strengthening the region’s manufacturing competitiveness.
• Capped a years-long battle to clarify and streamline the EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting rule ahead of the 2020 cycle. EPA made changes to the rules to address industry concerns that previous CDR rules discouraged recycling of byproducts and were duplicative with other regulatory reporting regimes.  
• Advocated for the industry in the initial implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) “Fees Rule” and worked to shape TSCA risk evaluations for 30 high-priority chemical substances.
• Completed an industry study to inform our advocacy on emerging policies related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). IPC studied how PFAS are used in electronics equipment and manufacturing, and how new policies might affect our industry.
• Continued our public-facing advocacy and outreach by: a) publishing a landmark report on the electronics industry’s contributions to the U.S. economy; b) producing a one-minute video about the industry’s importance in daily life; and c) placing interviews and op-eds in news outlets like Politico, The Hill, and Defense News.
• Formalized and expanded IPC’s European Government Relations Committee, giving our members in Europe a robust, regional platform to direct IPC’s advocacy on their behalf.
• Convened IMPACT Europe 2020, bringing together a record number of senior executives from across the industry as well as high-level EU policy makers to discuss policies affecting international trade, industrial strategy, environmental policy, and corporate conduct. 
• Produced a wide-ranging IPC response to the European Commission’s review of trade policy in light of COVID. IPC’s response highlighted the strategic role of our industry and advocated for strategic trading partnerships coupled with a robust industrial strategy supporting our sector in Europe. The written response and related meetings came at a key moment when the EU is formulating its future policies based on a concept of “open strategic autonomy.”
• Produced white papers on the chemical and product regulatory systems in nine Asia-Pacific countries: China, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

IPC GR works constantly to grow the industry globally by educating policy makers and building support for policies that will strengthen the industry. We are your eyes, ears, and voice in the halls of government. But we rely on you to tell us what your concerns are so we can be your champions. Learn more and get involved by visiting www.IPC.org/advocacy.

If your company manufactures or imports chemicals in the United States, then you need to review the proposed rule to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “TSCA Fees Rule.” Comments are due on or before February 25, but we welcome your initial feedback by Tuesday, January 26.

The original rule, published in 2018, provides the EPA with a source of funds to fulfill its obligations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including the completion of risk evaluations of high-priority chemical substances. The proposed changes to this rule are important because, under TSCA, the EPA will have between 20 and 30 risk evaluations occurring in any given year; and even if the current list of such substances does not apply to your company, future lists may apply, and you may be obligated to pay at that time.

IPC and its peer associations have been communicating with the EPA and other federal policymakers to underscore the need for commonsense reforms to the 2018 rule, and we are pleased that the proposed rule appears to make important and positive changes.  For example, the EPA is proposing exemptions for companies that manufacture or import high-priority chemical substances in quantities below 2,500 pounds per year; or produce them as a non-isolated intermediate; or import them in an article, produce them as a byproduct, or produce/import them as an impurity.  Also, the EPA is proposing a volume-based fee allocation. However, even with these positive provisions, we need to continue to provide information to the EPA to ensure those changes are instituted.

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the EPA within 45 days, or by February 25. To prepare for that comment period, we welcome your initial feedback on the pre-publication version of the proposed rule by Tuesday, January 26.

During your review, please consider the following:

• To bolster the case for the proposed exemptions, can you provide data on the potential impacts of the “TSCA Fees Rule” on your operations?
• How would the proposed fee calculation methods impact small businesses?
• Should a volume-based fee allocation be calculated on average volume over the last five years, based on the most recent year of reporting; or could the EPA use production volume ranges and calculate fees based on those ranges?

Please contact me with your questions and feedback, and update your IPC email preferences (advocacy) to receive all of our environment, health, and safety information. I will continue to keep you updated.