(CLOSED) Comments on Original Proposal for Amendments to Regulations Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content California Code of Regulations

Mr. Shane Weckerly Holley 2901 Hammett Hill Rd Bowling Green, KY 42101 November 30, 2023 Ms. Monet Vela Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 1001 I Street, 23rd Floor P. O. Box 4010 Sacramento, CA 95812-4010 Re: Opposition to OEHHA’s Proposed Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content Dear Ms. Vela: I am writing on behalf of Holley, a proud member of the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), to express our strong opposition to the Proposed Amendments to Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warnings, Safe Harbor Methods and Content, as put forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Holley appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal, which we believe introduces significant changes to the Proposition 65 regulations that were painstakingly developed and implemented on August 30, 2018, following extensive public discussion and collaboration. As a member of SEMA, Holley is part of the $336.91 billion specialty automotive industry, comprised of 7,000 primarily small businesses nationwide. We play a vital role in manufacturing, retailing, and distributing custom parts and accessories for motor vehicles, ranging from performance and restoration parts to enhancement components for various vehicle types. Our disappointment with the proposed revisions on October 27, 2023, stems from the fact that OEHHA is considering significant alterations to the Prop 65 short-form regulations just five years after the regulations took effect. Despite the agency's collaboration with the business community and stakeholders in developing the 2018 Prop 65 revisions, it is now proposing changes to a short-form warning option. Holley and SEMA have consistently voiced concerns, submitting comments in 2021 and 2022 urging OEHHA to reconsider similar proposals. Despite modifications, the concerns persist, and we strongly advocate for rescinding the current proposal. In addition to our general opposition, we would like to highlight the following points: 1. Failure to Acknowledge Business Investment: OEHHA has failed to recognize the substantial investment of time, money, and resources that companies, including SEMA members, have dedicated to understanding regulatory changes, retooling product labeling, and revising catalogs and websites. These efforts represent direct costs, and imposing additional regulatory burdens amid supply-chain challenges, inflation, and other marketplace realities is a significant concern. 2. Compliance Efforts by SEMA Member Companies: SEMA member companies have proactively complied with the 2018 regulations, such as retooling product labels, updating websites, revising catalogs, and instructing downstream distributors and retailers. Implementing the proposed amendments would necessitate reeducation of the business community and additional compliance steps, creating unnecessary challenges for companies. Bounty hunter attorneys may take advantage of companies unaware of the new rules. 3. Insufficient Justification for Drastic Action: The justification for the proposed changes appears insufficient, and SEMA members are concerned that the agency intends to move forward despite an inadequate basis. The agency's admission in the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) that it did not rely on any technical, theoretical, and/or empirical studies, reports, or documents as part of this rulemaking is alarming and should be sufficient grounds to reconsider the rulemaking. Given these concerns, Holley and SEMA respectfully urge OEHHA to withdraw its proposed short-form warning rule changes. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and remain open to further dialogue on this critical matter. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.