California Consults on Prop 65 Notice of Violation Amendments

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is consulting on proposed amendments that would clarify the content required in notices of violation served to alleged violators of Proposition 65.

Businesses failing to give 'clear and reasonable' warning before exposing an individual to a Prop 65-listed substance may be sued by private individuals acting in the public interest. Private enforcers must submit a so-called notice of violation (NOV) to state attorneys and the alleged violator at least 60 days before such action can start.

The proposal calls for amendments to "clarify the information required in a valid notice of violation".

This includes amending the content requirements for NOVs involving occupational exposure, to cross-reference mandatory language required under occupational health regulations.

It also proposes moving, to a separate appendix, special compliance procedural forms that must be used for certain exposures, These include those related to alcoholic beverages or engine exhaust.

Comments on the proposed amendments will be accepted until 3 July.

In separate notices, the agency also said it will:

> develop a safe use determination (SUD) for the use of diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in interface modular carpet tiles, per the manufacturer's request; and

> repeal emergency regulations for warning to exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages, as these sections were superseded by other regulatory provisions.