Comment Submissions - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings Short-form Warnings

My company, Okuma Fishing Tackle, complies with OEHHA’s 2018 regulation, which provided the option of a short-form warning label. Despite OEHHA’s statement at the time that those changes were being done to “provide certainty for businesses,” the new proposal would force my company to retool and reprint product labels, revise the website, update catalogs and instruct distributors and retailers. This will force us to spend countless of hours once again to make this change and would also cost us a lot of money to rework all artwork and specifications. Additionally, overhauling the short-form warning requirements will not address the stated problem of “over-warning.” It will instead just create more confusion, more litigation and impose more costs on businesses. We followed your instructions at great cost to our company and now you only want to use the small label on extremely small packaging. Once again, this feels like a policy that is not well thought out and an attempt to "correct" a misguided change in the original policy. OEHHA is creating more exposure to frivolous claims by private enforcers (commonly referred to as bounty hunters) about Prop 65 labeling. These bounty hunters frequently file illegitimate claims, yet companies like mine are forced to settle rather than challenge these claims due to the inordinate legal costs and time commitment associated with going to court. This is a very real threat to many companies and will only feed lawyers and "professional" litigation companies. We feel a label on a resonably sized package that will direct a consumer to a website that gives more information would be valuable for all - especially companies trying to comply as well as consumers who want more detailed information from a government agency. The larger label does NOTHING to explain the potential issue to the consumer - it is our opinion that directly a consumer to a website would answer more concerns. This proposal creates significant instability in an already unstable business environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many companies have staff working from home, uncertain expenses at this time and to saddle business with these additional costs now - because of a "faulty" policy charge, hardly seems reasonable. My company respectfully urges OEHHA to withdraw the proposed rule.