Final Statement of Reasons
Title 27 , California Code of Regulations
Amendments to
Clear and Reasonable Warnings
Section s 25602 , 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Related to Consumer Product, Food and Alcoholic Beverage 
Exposure Warnings  
California Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 2                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure WarningsContents
Final Statement of Reasons  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1
Title 27, California Code of Regulations  ................................ ................................ .....................  1
Amendments to  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  1
Clear and Reason able Warnings  ................................ ................................ ...............................  1
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3  ................................ ................................ ...........  1
Related to Consumer Product, Food and Alcoholic Beverage Exposure Warnings  ....................  1
Summary  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3
Update of Initial Statement of Reasons  ................................ ................................ ......................  4
Summary and response to comments received during the public comment period  ....................  4
Sectio ns 25602 and 25607 Comments  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4
General Comments  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  7
Modification of Text of Proposed Regulation 15 -day Comment Period  ................................ ......11
Local Mandate Determination  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...11
Alternatives Determination  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 3                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure WarningsSummary  
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA ) published the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Statement of Reasons  (ISOR)  for this action on 
January 31, 2020, initiating  a public comment period that was to close on March 16, 
2020 . On March 13, 202 0, OEHHA augmented the record and thereby extended the 
commen t period until March 31, 2020. No public hearing was requested for the 
regulatory proposal . 
One written comment letter was received from a coalition of groups including the 
Consumer Brands Association, California Chamber of Commerce,  and others1(“the 
Coalition ”). Following careful consideration of the relevant comments , OEHHA modified 
the text of the rulemaking proposal, including the withdrawal of several initially  proposed 
substantive modifications to the existing regulation . OEHHA announced the  withdrawal 
of these proposed modifications in a public notice published on September 18, 2020, 
initiating a 15 -day comment peri od that closed on October 5, 2020.  No comments were 
received  during the 15 -day public comment period . 
OEHHA is provid ing responses to relevant comments submitted during this rulemaking 
in this Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR ). Some written comments  submitted during 
the regulatory process included observations about these regulations that do not 
constitute an objection or recommendation directed at the proposed action or the 
procedures followed in this rulemaking action. In addition, some remarks consist of the 
commenter ’s interpretation of these regulations, which does not constitute an objection 
or recommendation directed at changing the proposed action or the procedures 
followed in this rulemaking process. OEHHA is not required under the Ad ministrative 
Procedure Act (APA) to respond to such remarks in the rulemaking and therefore is not 
providing responses to all of these comments in this FSOR. However, the absence of 
1 Other signatories to the comments submitted by the Coalition include: Al mond Alliance of 
California, American Beverage Association, American Chemistry Council, American Coatings 
Association, American Bakers Association, California Attractions and Parks Association, 
California Building Industry Association, California Farm Bure au Federation, California Grain 
and Feed Association, California League of Food Processors, California Seed Association, 
California Manufacturers & Technology Association, California Warehouse Association, 
California Business Properties Association, Counci l for Responsible Nutrition, National 
Association of Music Merchants, National Confectioners Association, Personal Care & Products 
Council, Plumbing Manufacturers International, Industrial Environmental Association, West 
Coast Lumber & Building Material As sociation, Western Independent Refiners Association, 
Western Wood Preservers Institute, and The Vision Council.Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 4                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningsresponses to such comments should not be construed to mean that OEHHA in a ny way 
agrees with them.
Update of  Initial Statement  of Reasons
In the Notice of Augmentation of Record  published on March 13, 2020 , OEHHA 
announced that a copy of the  Consent Judgment in People v. 1800Flowers.com et al ., 
San Diego County Superior Court case No. 37 -2020 -00009417 -CU-TT-CTL, regarding 
warnings for exposures to alcoholic beverages  referred to in the ISOR  was being added 
to the record . OEHHA’s proposed amendments conform the safe harbor regulations to 
the provisions of the Attorney Gene ral’s settlement , which will allow businesses that 
may not be parties  to the settlement to use the same processes for providing 
Proposition 65 warnings.
Summary and response to comments received during the 
public comment period 
The Consumer Brands Association, California Chamber of Commerce,  and others ( “the 
Coalition ”) submitted joint comments regarding  Sections 25602 and 25607.  No other 
comments were received.
Sections 25602 and 25607 Comments
Comment 1:  The commenter s state d that the proposed amendments would alter the 
existing safe harbor warning for almost every consumer product, including food and 
beverages sold over the internet or through mobile applications to require a Prop osition  
65 warning not only at the time of the online purchase , but also on the l abel of the 
product . The commenters state d that t his would  essentially eliminat e stand -alone online 
warnings as a safe harbor warning method. The commenter s requested  that the 
proposed amendments to Sections 25602 and 2560 7 be withdrawn.
Response: OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’ characterization of the existing 
safe harbor warning method. However, after carefully reviewing the comments, OEHHA 
withdrew  the proposed substantive amendments to Sections 25602 subsections (a)(2), 
(b), and (c) ; the renumbering of existing Section 2 5607 subsection (b);  and the addition 
of new subsections (b), (c), and (d). OEHHA will consider proposing these or other 
related amendments in a future rulemaking.  
Comment 2:  The commenter s state d that the  current safe harbor regulations do not 
require businesses selling online to provide both a website  warning and a warning on or 
with the same product . The commenter s interpret ed Section 25602(a)(2) to allow a 
standalone internet warning as a safe harbor warning method. The commenter s also Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 5                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningscharacterize d the proposed amendments as altering  Section 25602(a)(2) by limiting it to 
warnings provided via any electronic device or process “at the physical  retail location” 
and eliminating  standalone website and mobile application warnings as safe harbor 
warning method s.
Response: OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’ characterization of the existing 
regulations. However, t he proposed amendments  to Section 25602(a)(2) have been 
withdrawn. No further response i s required.
Comment 3:  The commenter s state d that the  elimination of stand -alone online 
warnings as a safe harbor warning method would have wide -ranging practical effects 
that are highly detr imental to online retailing in California. The commenter s state d that 
following the adoption of the regulations in 2016, many companies relied upon the plain 
language of the regulations to create and implement their Prop osition  65 warning 
programs. The  commenter s also state d that the  proposed amendments would  cause 
businesses to have to invest significant time and resources into changing their 
Prop osition  65 warning programs. 
Response:  OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  chara cterization of the existing 
safe harbor regulations as they apply to warnings for internet purchases  and their 
speculation on the practical effects on businesses from the previously proposed 
regulatory changes . This comment is based on proposed changes to the regulations 
that have since been withdrawn. No response is required or given.  Lack of a response 
should not be taken as an agreement with the comment.
Comment 4:  The commenter s state d that Subsection (a)(2) is not a clarifying change, 
but rather a “ wholesale change ” by OEHHA to the requirements of the  August 2016  
Article 6 safe har bor warning regulations. The commenter s state d that the 2016 FSOR 
indicated  that websites and smart phone applications are safe harbor methods , and that 
OEHHA  made other statements  that website warnings are safe harbor warnings.
Response:  OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  characterization of the FSOR for 
the existing regulations. Websites and smart phones can be a part of a safe harbor 
warning method, but neither are a standalone safe harbor warning method. This 
comment is based on proposed changes to the regulations that have since been 
withdrawn. N o response  is required  or given.  Lack of a response should not be taken as 
an agreement with the comment.  
Comment 5:  The Coalition stated that the safe harbor regulations seek to provide 
warnings prior to purchase, rather than prior to exposure. The commenters  also stated 
that if a manufacturer puts a warning on the product label and it is sold over the internet, 
the purchaser will receive both an internet warning and a label warning , because for Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 6                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningsonline sales an internet warning is the only way a person can get  a warning prior to 
purchase. The commenter s opine d that t he amendments would  not further OEHHA’s 
objective that customers receive the warning prior to p urchase , and instead treat 
website and mobile application sales differently by requiring two different types of 
warnings for those purchases : online warnings and warnings on or with the product.  
Response: OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  characterization of the intent of the 
existing regulations. This comment is based on proposed changes to the regulations 
that have since been withdrawn. N o response  is required  or given. Lack of a response 
should not be taken as an agreement with the comment.  
Comment 6:  The commenter s question ed OEHHA’s description of the amendments as 
clarifications of current safe harbor requirements,  and state d that OEHHA  did not 
attempt to explain, analyze, or justify the substantive change they encompass . The 
commenter s assert ed that there is no policy -based  reason why a consumer who 
purchases a product online should need a warning at the time of purchase and a 
warning on the label of the product that is shipped to the consumer. The commenter s 
state d that c onsumers at brick -and-mortar stores could  receive a s ingle warning, either 
at the point of purchase like a shelf sign or on the label of the product , and that there is 
no reason to treat online purchasers any differently. The commenter s further  stated  that 
OEHHA ’s justification for  requiring point of purchase warnings, instead of warnings 
before exposure as required by the statute, is that the consumer is making the purchase 
decision at the point of purchase , and is more likely to consider and heed a warning at 
that point rather than once the product is already purchased and in the consumer’s 
home. The commenter s stated that f or products sold online, the point of purchase is 
online,  and that by  OEHHA’s reasoning, that is the point at which t he warning should be 
provided.  The commenter s opined t hat a  warning on the label of the product itself would 
be superfluous.
Response:  OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  characterization of the  proposed  
amendments to Section 25602 . This comment is based on proposed changes to the 
regulations that have since been withdrawn. N o response  is required  or given. Lack of a 
response should not be taken as an agreement with the comment.  
Comment 7:  The commenter s stated that a dding a requirement for on -label warnings 
will impact production, distribution, and manufacturing costs. The commenter s also 
claimed that u nless a business is willing to provide an on -label warning to consumers 
outside of California, which the law does not  require and which may cause confusion or 
alarm among those consumers, the business will need to create two lines of products 
with separate stock keeping unit ( SKU) designations so that online retailers will know Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 7                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningswhich are destined for California and which  for other jurisdictions. The commenter s 
opined that this  would  increase expenses and complexity in the supply chain and could 
add to consumer costs.
Response:  This portion of the comment consist ing of the commenters’ opinion of the 
potential impact of the  proposed changes to Section 25602 is no longer relevant . This 
comment is based on proposed changes to the regulations that have since been 
withdrawn. N o response  is required  or given. Lack of a response should not be taken as 
an agreement with the comment.  
Comment 8:  The commenter s state d that the  proposed amendments would  spur 
frivolous litigation with respect to warnings that are “clear and reasonable” under the 
statute an d that are therefore compliant with the law, but that do not comport with the 
proposed two -warning approach for online sales. The commenter s claim ed that i f a 
company only warns online but does not put a warning on the product label, it risks 
receiving a notice of violation alleging that the online warning was insufficient , because 
a stand -alone online warning is not  a safe harbor method.
Response:  OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  speculation as to increased 
litigation arising from  the prop osed changes to Section 25602 . This comment is based 
on proposed changes to the regulations that have since been withdrawn. N o response  
is required  or given. Lack of a response should not be taken as an agreement with the 
comment. 
Comment 9:  The commenter s state d that the proposed amendments would  have a 
significant adverse economic impact on businesses selling products online and through 
mobile ap plications. The commenter s also state d that t hose businesses would  now be 
required to provide a second warning on the product label to fall within the safe harbor.
Response:  OEHHA disagrees with the commenters’  statement that a non -mandatory, 
safe harbor regulation will increase costs to businesses. However,  the proposed 
changes to Section 25602 have been withdrawn. No further response to the comment is 
required. 
General Comments
Comment 10:  The commenter s allege d that the proposed amendments were  “tainted 
by a clear violation of the APA.” The commenter claim ed that “non-substantive changes” 
to the safe harbor warning regulations under  section 100 of Title 1  adopted in  2017  
included a change to subsection 25602(b) that was substantive. Specifically, the 
commenter allege d that the addition of the word “also” was substantive and  therefore 
adopting it through Section 100 violate d the APA. Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 8                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure WarningsResponse:  OEHHA  strongly  disagrees with the commenters’  allegation  that the 2017 
“Section 100” addition of the word “also” in S ubsections 25602(b) and (c) was  adopted 
in violation of the APA. Throughout  the prior Article 6 rulemaking process, several of the 
Coalition members were aware of and commented on the original regulatory action  that 
put in place the existing requirement for two warnings when a product is sold over the 
internet . 
In the Explanatory Statement  for the non -substantive changes  filed with the Office of 
Administrative Law  (OAL) in 2017 , OEHHA discussed how a combination of methods 
was required including website warnings  to claim safe harbor protection under the 
existing regulations.
“Section 25602 
In subsections (b) and (c) add ‘also’ to emphasize the safe harbor warning 
method requirement to provide a warning for internet and catalog sales, 
respectively. The regulations require a business wishing to provide a safe 
harbor warning to use a combination of warning methods for internet and 
catalog sales, including the method described in subsection (a) and one of 
the specific warning method [s] for internet or catalog sales des cribed in 
Sections 25602(b) or (c) . On p. 77 of the Final Statement of Reasons (FSR), we 
noted: 
‘…[f]or these reasons, OEHHA has established safe harbor warning 
methods for internet and catalog sales wherein a warning must be 
provided on the webpage or in  the catalog as well as on the product .’ 
OEHHA additionally modified the regulatory text in response to comments about 
the requirement to provide an additional warning on a website or in a catalog. In 
the FS OR for the 201 6 rulemaking , OEHHA discusse d the modifications that 
were made in response to comments about a second warning requirement in 
section 25602 for internet sales. [Fn. omitted] [2016 FSOR, p. 116.]  Specifically, 
OEHHA modified Section 25600.2(b) and (d) to require that the manufa cturer 
pass internet warning materials along to the retailer, and in Section 25602(b) and 
(c) OEHHA added the ability for a business to use the ‘short -form’ warning on the 
internet and catalogs in lieu of the longer warning, in addition to including it on 
the product label. Section 25602(b) expressly states that ‘If an on -product 
warning is provided pursuant to Section 25602(a)(4) the warning provided on the 
website may use the same content as the on -product warning.’ 
Similarly, 25602(c) provides, ‘If an o n-product warning is being provided pursuant 
to Section 25602(a)(4), the warning provided in the catalog may use the same Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 9                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningscontent as the on -product warning.’ These change are consistent with the 
existing safe harbor warning requirement in the regulatory te xt; as such, the 
changes do not materially alter any requirement, right, responsibility, condition, 
prescription or other regulatory element of any California Code of Regulations 
provision.”2
The commenters’  reframed  argument presents a novel approach to challenge  the 
existing  “two warning” requirement . This does not , however,  alter or diminish the fact 
that t he changes were properly submitted to OAL and were reviewed and approved by 
OAL, in full compliance with the APA.3The extensive rulemak ing record for the 2016 
Article 6  rulemaking demonstrates that many  of the same stakeholders raised the same 
issue  of “second warnings” for consumer products sold on the internet , albeit in the 
reverse . OEHHA thoroughly considered and responded to comments , modified 
proposed regulatory text in response to comments, repeatedly stated that two warnings 
for products sold on the internet are required to claim safe harbor protection  and 
explained the reasons for adopting the existing regulatory language . Therefore, t he 
addition or  deletion of the word “also” had no significant regulatory effect upon the 
regulations as adopted in 2016, and businesses that wish to take advantage of the safe 
harbor warning provision are  still responsible for  provid ing warnings both on or with the 
product and on the website for products sold online , regardless of the addition  of the 
word “also”  to the existing regulation.  
No changes to the  proposed  regulatory amendments were made based o n this 
comment. 
Comment 11:  The Coalition further allege d that OEHHA’s proposed amendments were  
an attempt to “shore -up its illegal amendment ” to subsection 25602(b) and to correct the 
alleged error that OEHHA made earlier  in adding the word “also” .  
Response : The commenter s clearly mischaracte rized the original 2016  rulemaking that 
adopt ed Section 25602 as erron eous  and the subsequent amendments as illeg al. As 
explained in response to Comment 10 above, one must only review the extensive 
record for these regulations to determine these allegations are false. 
No changes to the regulatory amendments were made based on this comment. 
2 Explanatory Statement, Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (b) and (c) 
filed on Jan. 1, 2017 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 
2017, No. 2), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/sec100final.pdf  (last 
accessed Apr. 27, 2020).  
3 Office of Administ rative Law, Notice of Approval of Changes without Regulatory Effect Jan. 9, 
2017, available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/oalapproval010917.pdf  (last 
accessed Apr. 27, 2020).Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 10                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure WarningsComment 12:  The commenter s claim ed that OEHHA failed to analyze the economic 
impact of the proposed amendments in accordance with  Cal. Gov. Code § 11346.3.  
The commenter s opine d that OEHHA was wrong when it claim ed that “[t]he action does 
not impose any new requirements on private persons or businesses.”
Response:  OEHHA completed an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance 
with Cal. Gov. Code § 11346.3, subsection (b). The EIA was included in the ISOR4for 
this proposed rulemaking and was made available for public comment by publication in 
the California Regulatory Notice Register and on the OEHHA website.  The commenters 
are correct to the extent that in the current rulemaking, OEHHA stated that the action 
would  not impose any new requirements upon private persons or businesses . OEHHA 
further explained that the action simply clarifies existing provisions of the regulations.   
The proposed modifications are to non-mandatory safe -harbor provisions that a 
busine ss may opt to use to provide a Proposition 65 warning. If a business determines 
the safe harbor methods and content are too costly, they are free to  provide a warning 
via any method they choose that complies with the Act .5Further , the proposed changes 
to Section 25602 have been withdrawn. No further response to the comment is 
required.
No changes to the regulatory amendments were made based on this comment. 
Comment 13:  The commenter s state d that the proposed amendments cannot be 
justified as a policy change and therefore should be withdrawn. The commenter s also 
request ed an additional opportunity to comment  in the event OEHHA decides to adopt 
the amendments  as proposed .
Response: The comment is based on proposed changes to the regulations that have 
since been withdrawn. As OEHHA has withdr awn the modifications initially proposed 
that are addressed in  this comment , there is no need to provide  an additional 
opportunity to comment on those provisions. OEHHA provided a total of 60 days for 
public comment on the amendments as initially proposed, and an additional  17 days for 
public comment on the modified regulatory text . OEHHA is not required by the APA to 
consider comments submitted ou tside of the prescribed comment period  and therefore  
declines to accept further comments on this proposal . 
No changes to the proposed regulatory amendments were made based on this 
comment. 
4 Initial Statement of Reasons , p. 8.
5 Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., section  25600(f).Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 11                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure WarningsModification of Text of Proposed Regulation 15-day 
Comment Period
After  carefully  weighing the comments received during the initial public comment period, 
OEHHA decided to withdraw certain proposed amendments to the regulations. OEHHA 
announced it was with drawing portions of these proposed amendments in a public 
notice published on September 18, 2020, initiating a 15 -day comment period that closed 
on October 5, 2020. No comments were received. The following proposed amendments 
to Section 25602(a)(2 ) which specifie s warnings “at the physical retail location” ; Section 
25602 (b) that refers to internet purchases “including purchases through mobile device 
applications” and hyperlink “to the warning” ; and Section 25602 (c) that refers to catalog 
purchases  “in addition to any other warning provided under this subarticle” were 
withdrawn. Also,  the renumbering of existing Section 25607(b) to Section 25607(d) was 
withdrawn  because  the addition of a new Section 25607(b)  that states  an on -product 
warnin g is required  in addition to an online or catalog warning for those types of 
purchases , and a new subsection  (c) that imposed an alternative language requirement  
were withdrawn. OEHHA may propose these or other amendments in a future 
rulemaking.  All other proposed amendments remain ed.
Local Mandate Determination
OEHHA has determined this regulatory action will not impose a mandate on local 
agencies or school districts nor does it require reimbursement by the State pursuant to 
Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code. Local 
agenci es and school districts are exempt from Proposition 65. OEHHA has also 
determined that no nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies or school 
districts will result from this regulatory action.  
Alternatives Determination
In accordance with Government Code section 11346.9(a)(7), OEHHA has considered 
available alternatives to determine whether any alternative would be more effective in 
carrying out the purpose for which the regulations were proposed. OEHHA has also 
considere d whether an alternative existed that would be as effective as, and less 
burdensome to, affected private persons than the proposed action. OEHHA has 
determined that no alternative considered would be more effective, or as effective and 
less burdensome to a ffected private persons, than the proposed action. OEHHA 
considered taking no action but finds that taking no action is inconsistent with the intent 
of the Act and its implementing regulations and would not provide all businesses that 
sell alcoholic bevera ges on the internet or through apps the opportunity to use the Final Statement of Reasons
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment                                             Page 12                        
Title 27, California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 25602, 25607, 25607.1 and 25607.3
Consumer Product , Food and Alcoholic Beverage  Exposure Warningsmethods set out in the Attorney General’s settlement whether they were parties to that 
settlement or not.  Therefore, OEHHA has determined that no alternative considered 
would be more cost -effec tive, or as effective in implementing the statutory policy or 
other provision of law.