The latest revision of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) proposed Labor Code Regulation falls short of accurately providing a regulation that would comply with a 2012 appellate opinion that defined how chemicals can be added to the Proposition 65 list according to three organization that weighed in on the new version of the proposal.
The latest revision made substantial changes to the Initial Statement of Reasons set forth by the agency, however, the larger question remains whether the regulation is necessary at all, as OEHHA is the only organization that says it is needed.
The California Chamber of Commerce noted in its comments about the revision that its members are pleased the agency “addressed its’ fundamental concerns” by revising its “overly inclusive interpretation” of which groups of chemicals fall under the revised Federal Hazard Communication Standard. The organization supports the revision as it “now accurately tracks the holding in Styrene Information and Research Center v. OEHHA (SIRC) (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1082, is consistent with the Initial Statement of Reasons, and no longer “engenders confusion.”
The Chamber also supports OEHHA’s revision to the Initial Statement of Reasons because it “removes the faulty language regarding Appendix D and further acknowledges that HCS 2012 repealed the mandate that employers treat substances listed on IARC’s Monograph or NTP’s Report on Carcinogens as conclusive findings of carcinogenicity.”
The coalition of members represented by the Chamber expressed concern that the revised Labor Code Regulation could potentially revise its “overly inclusive interpretation” of which groups of chemicals fall under the revised Federal Hazard Communication Standard.