There’s much happening in the world of Proposition 65 these days. In the posts coming up, Cal Biz Lit will talk about
- The status of the new safe harbor warning and web site regulations proposed by OEHHA;
- New AB 1252 (Jones), a second try to give some small businesses who receive a 60 notice an opportunity to cure their failures to warn and avoid a Proposition 65 suit, penalties and attorneys’ fees;
- New AB 543 (Quirk), which provides a “get out of jail free” card for a company that receives a 60 day notice but has an exposure assessment showing that the exposure is below the No Significant Risk Level or Maximum Allowable Daily Level;
- Mattel Environmental Justice Foundation’s suit against OEHHA, seeking to force OEHHA to repeal it’s safe harbor levels for lead exposure; and
- This week’s Court of Appeal decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., affirming judgment in favor of the defendant baby-food manufacturer in a Proposition 65 lead case, on the ground that the levels of exposure were lower than those same safe harbor levels.
So stay tuned – we’ll start today with the proposed regulations, right after the jump.