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

Director Zeise, I respectfully as you to consider the points below on behalf of the Edelbrock Group that employees a total of 850 employees with operations in California, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina and Michigan. The proposed change in labeling would cause undue harm and burden on our business and employees while providing no real world consumer protection value. My company relied on OEHHA’s 2018 regulation which provided the option of a short-form warning label. OEHHA is now forcing my company to retool and reprint product labels, revise the website, update catalogs, and instruct distributors and retailers. The proposed change has not been sufficiently justified and OEHHA has not acknowledged the costs being imposed. OEHHA is creating more exposure to claims by private enforcers about Prop 65 labeling errors. OEHHA does not sufficiently appreciate that companies frequently feel forced to settle with the bounty hunters rather than challenge illegitimate claims. Prop 65 offers an exemption for companies less than 10 employees. That is meaningless for most companies including my own. OEHHA’s Prop 65 regulations are unique in the United States. The agency has created a de facto national standard. OEHHA should be more judicious in creating labeling obligations and legal exposures. It is hard to understand how OEHHA could be threatening to impose unwarranted economic burdens during a pandemic. My company respectfully urges OEHHA to withdraw the proposed rule. Chris Douglas