Comment Period - Notice Second 15-Day Modification to Proposed Amendments to Title 27, California Code Of Regulations - Short Form

The color scheme for warnings required in the Prop65 law do NOT follow ANSI Z535 (American National Standards) rules for proper color combinations for "Warning" labels, which should be orange with black lettering and a black equilateral triangle. In black and white versions, black warning text and a black triangle should be used on a white background. The current Prop65 requirements use black lettering against a yellow background, which is actually the ANSI Z535 standard reserved for "Caution" labels. These are basic standards required by ANSI Z535 for all danger, warning, caution, and notice labels used in the USA, Europe, and Canada. As such, California should be following the correct ANSI Z535 color scheme standards for warning labels if it is going to impose legislation like this that generates huge volumes of consumer warnings in America. Regarding the 2016 changes, our company spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor time, attorney counsel fees, and printing costs to ensure compliance with the new rules due by September, 2018. Not only did the updated rules affect our packaging and all website pages for over 12,000 products sold in California, but also the same products sold throughout USA and Canada. Since 2018, we have also had to start printing a special annual California edition of our 800+ page full-color catalog that we have historically been distributing America since 1983. The bottom line is that in recent years our Company has had to spend a great deal of time and money to comply with the 2016 Prop65 warning changes, and this short-form amendment coming so quickly after the legislation was revised makes us lose a lot of confidence in those responsible for Prop65 legislation. As advised by counsel at the time, due to space considerations in our marketing media and wide range of product offerings available, we relied heavily on the short form warnings that were allowed by the 2016 version of Prop65. Now seeing that these short-form warnings are trying to be removed from the legislation so soon after being added is very disappointing. With regards to the Prop65 warnings in our catalogs, space is extremely limited. With many products, we barely have the room to include the existing short-form warnings. Expanding these warnings with the specific carcinogens, especially if the warning also contains additional chemicals known to cause birth defects will require twice as much space and cause us to duplicate most of the labor time and costs we already expended to comply with the 2016 rule changes. For this reason, we DISAGREE with amending the short form warnings at this time. California amending the short form warnings so soon after implementing them will cost many Companies like our hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor and printing costs to change our packaging and marketing materials--and all this is time and money that would have already been spent during the intial efforts to comply with the 2016 changes. Forcing companies to re-spend the labor time and costs on what appears to have been a mistake in 2016 is a huge waste of resources, and it comes at a terrible time of inflation and high product costs that most consumers are already facing. In order make up for these costs, Calfornia's citizens will likely have to bear the reponsibility through what has been increasingly seen throughout many industries as a "California Surcharge" for the additional costs that legislation like this costs companies who sell to Californians. The fact that California is attempting to amend this regulation after such a short period of time since the last amendment makes it obvious that those who responsible for the last change lacked of preparation and forethought about what they were trying to accomplish back in 2016. Equally embarrassing is California's lack of awareness of already well established national standards (ANSI Z535) for warning labels and the creation of a such far reaching legislation that conflicts with those standards. The intent of Prop65 was good, but throughout its history, it has arguably not accomplished what it was originally intended to do. It is legislation that requires virtually zero burden of proof along every step of the way. Zero burden of proof that an item actually contains a listed chemical or that it contains enough of the chemical or that it is in such a state that it can be absorbed by the human body when it receives a warning label. And California requires zero burden of proof "citizen enforcer" attorneys to verify existence of the chemical when they send out violation letters that almost always result in settlements, which are generously divided between the attorneys and State of California. Overall, Prop65 is arguably causing a mass over-warning effect that will likely just result in Californians seeing so many warnings on everything that they will sadly and predictably end up ignoring the truly important warnings that actually do present serious exposures that could cause them actual harm. However, when places like California airports and Disneyland have Prop65 warnings on the walls, what are people actually expected to do in those situations and just how are those signs doing anything to ensure Californians are getting cleaner air or water, or avoiding dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects? CaliforniaaOEE