Document J5kNxBGYKvgBLER4Nd1E7o1a

Complying with Proposition 65: An Industry Overview by Charles A. O'Connor and Donna G. Diamond McKenna, Conner & Cuneo VVV QQG0G869G California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 19861 popuiar/y known as "Proposition 65," took effect on Feb. 27, 2988. requiring exposure warnings /or 29 chemicais on the Governor's list of substances "known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity." On Oct. 27, 1988, the Jaw's provision pro hibiting the "knowing" discharge of listed chemicals into any source of drinking water will take effect. Within the next two years, more than 200 substances, including lead, benzene, asbestos, and even tobacco smoke, will become sub ject to the warning and discharge provisions of this controversial ballot initiative. One source of controversy is Proposition 65's sweeping and often ambiguous language. In an attempt to clarify certain terms, the California Health and Welfare Agency, the lead agency charged with implementation, issued a set of final and emergency regula tions shortly before the law took effect on Feb. 27. This article will provide a brief overview of Propo sition 65, the implementing regu lations, and enforcement and compliance issues. Overview Proposition 65 was based on the proponents' belief that neither the 56 federal nor the state government was adequately protecting the people of California from hazard ous chemicals.2 In response to this perceived problem, the law estab lished two relatively simple causes of action under the dis charge and warning provisions. It allows citizen suit enforcement, and shifts the burden of proof to defendants. The Discharge Prohibition. Sec. 25249.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that, with limited exceptions. *`[N]o person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drink ing water, notwithstanding any other provision or authorization of law." The prohibition does not apply to persons employing fewer than 10 employees, to public agencies, or to operations of pub lic water systems.3 A chemical is "known to the state to cause cancer or reproduc tive toxicity" if the state's "quali fied expert" finds that the chemi cal has been "clearly shown through scientifically valid test ing according to generally ac cepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."4 A chemical automatically falls into this category if an organization considered by the state's experts to be authoritative has formally identified the chemical as a car cinogen or reproductive toxicant, or if a state or federal agency has formally required that the chem ical be labeled as a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant. The law directs the Governor to publish annually a list of chemicais iden tified in accordance with these criteria. There are two exemptions from the discharge prohibition. There is a 20-month grace period follow ing the listing of any chemical. In addition, a specific discharge is exempt if it will not result in any "significant amount" of the dis charged chemical entering any source of drinking water and the discharge is in compliance with all applicable regulations, per mits, and orders.3 This specific ex emption offers little relief, how ever. In any enforcement action the burden is on the defendant to show that a discharge satisfies these criteria.5 Furthermore, a "significant amount" is "any de tectable amount" unless the de fendant can show that exposure to the discharged chemical in drinking water poses "no signifi cant risk" of cancer, assuming life time exposure at the level of dis charge, or that the exposure will fuly 1988 have no observable reproductive effect assuming exposure at 1,000 times the level of discharge." The law fails to define either "significant risk" or Mdetectable amount" and thus creates practical difficulties for businesses ... The law fails to define either "significant risk" or "detectable amount" and thus creates practi cal difficulties for businesses at tempting to demonstrate a lawful discharge. Fortunately, the Health and Welfare Agency's emergency regulations address "no significant risk" and "no ob servable effect level," which should ease the burden to prove that exposures meet the exemp tion criteria. The Warning Requirement. The second major provision of Proposition 65 requires that "no person in the course of doing busi ness shall knowingly and inten tionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive tox icity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such indi vidual."' Warnings need not be given to exposed persons individ ually. but may be disseminated generally by means such as prod uct labels, mailings, signs, and media announcements.9 The law places the burden to provide a warning primarily on manufac turers, packagers, and producers rather than on retailers.9 The Health and Welfare Agency's emergency regulations also ad dress the warning provision. The law offers three limited ex emptions from the warning re quirement.9 The first applies to exposures where federal law gov erns warnings "in a manner that Chemical TIMES & TRENDS preempts state authority." The second applies to exposures oc curring within 12 months of the date the chemical is added to the Governor's list. The third requires a defendant to show that the ex posure will pose "no significant risk" of cancer, assuming lifetime exposure, and will result in no observable reproductive effects at 1,000 times the level of exposure. The Penalties. Proposition 65 permits private citizens as well as public enforcement officials to sue for violations of both the warning and the discharge provi sions.10 Plaintiffs may seek in junctive relief and/or civil penal ties. Violation of either the warn ing or the discharge provision of the law carries a maximum pen alty of $2,500 per day per viola tion. Plaintiffs in failure-to-warn cases will attempt to maximize penalties by asking that penalties be assessed on a "per day per in dividual exposed" basis. The law's "bounty hunter" provision awards one-fourth of any assessed penal ties to the office or citizen bring ing the action. These penalty pro visions are expected to result in vigorous private enforcement of Proposition 65. The Chemical List On Feb. 27. 1987. California's Governor George Deukmejian published a list of 29 chemicals "known to the state to cause cancer or reproduc tive toxicity." This first listing triggered the warning require ment as of Feb. 27. 1988, and the discharge prohibition as of Oct. 27, 1988, for these 29 chemicals. At the same time, the Governor published a list of 202 "candidate" chemicals that the Governor's Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) is in the process of reviewing." From the candidate list and else where, the panel has added ap proximately 200 more chemicals to the Governor's original list. The warning and discharge provisions affecting these chemicals take ef fect 12 months and 20 months, respectively, from the date of their publication. Implementation of the Law During the past year, the Health and Welfare Agency issued nu merous draft interpretative guide lines and proposed regulations under Proposition 65 in order to "test the waters." Finally, on Feb. 17. 1988. the agency issued final and emergency regulations defin ing key terms such as ''knowing" and "discharge into drinking water" and addressing, among other issues, the statutory terms "clear and reasonable warning" and "no significant risk." Definitions. The final regula tions clarify that a "knowing" dis charge, release, or exposure re quires the person responsible to be aware both that the act is oc curring and that the chemical is listed.12 Knowledge that the re lease or exposure is unlawful is not required.12 Another key phrase, "discharge or release into water or onto or into land." in cludes releases to air that are "di rectly and immediately deposited into water or onto land."11 In ad dition. the term includes transfers of listed chemicals to third parties for purposes of discharge or re lease in an unlawful manner. The term does not include the sale, exchange, or other transfer of a chemical to a solid waste disposal facility or a hazardous waste fa cility owned by a third party, pro vided that the disposal complies with all applicable state and fed eral laws.13 Nor does the term in clude the sale, exchange, or other transfer of the chemical to any publicly owned treatment works.13 The regulations also establish a rebuttable presumption that any discharge or release into water or onto or into land which is in "hy draulic continuity" with a source of drinking water "probably" will pass to that source regardless of whether it is upgradient or down stream.'3 Unfortunately, the reg ulations failed to define the term "hydraulic continuity." More over. the law defines "source of drinking water" by reference to 57 69800000 A ** -* regional water quality control Clear and Reasonable Warn Primary responsibility for provid plans.14 In their current form, ings. Under its emergency regu ing consumer product warnings those plans are too general to pro lations, the agency interprets rests with the manufacturer, pro vide meaningful guidance under "clear and reasonable warnings" ducer, or packager. Nevertheless, , Proposition 65; they reference vir as those "reasonably calculated, the regulations make it clear that s tually ail surface and ground considering the alternative meth anyone in the chain of commerce s water. The State Water Resources Control Board is in the process of ods available under the circum who sells or otherwise transfers a stances, to make the warning mes consumer product with knowl finalizing a definition of "source sage available to the individual edge that the product requires a of drinking water," and has held prior to exposure."21 The warning warning is responsible for provid several hearings on that issue. must "clearly communicate" that ing that warning.23 General Provisions. The Health and Welfare Agency's final rules also address procedures for obtaining guidance from the agency in the form of interpreta tive guidelines, safe use determi nations. and information letters.1* Anyone who is unsure whether a current or potential business ac tivity is in violation of Proposition 65 may seek a "safe use determi nation."10 Trade associations also may request safe use determina tions on behalf of their mem bers.16 A safe use determination "represents the State's best judg ment concerning the application of the Act to the particular facts presented in the request."16 A re quest for a safe use determination must be submitted in writing to the agency, and should contain as much detailed information as pos sible regarding the use of the chemical, exposure, and toxic ity.17 However, safe use determi nations are subject to public no tice and comment, and are advi sory only. They do not preclude an enforcement action under the law.18 Interested parties also may re quest interpretive guidelines.19 the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive effects.21 The agency has defined three categories of ex posure--consumer products ex posures, occupational exposures, and environmental exposures-- Businesses need not adhere to the specific warning language ... set forth in the regulations, but are free to develop their own warning statements. and prescribes acceptable meth ods of transmitting warnings for each category. Businesses need not adhere to the specific warning language or transmittal method set forth in the regulations, but are free to develop their own warning statements.21 Consumer product exposures are defined as exposures resulting from the acquisition, purchase, storage, consumption, or other reasonably foreseeable use of a consumer good, or any exposure Occupational exposures are those occurring "in the work place of the employer causing the exposure, to any employee."24 Oc cupational warnings may be transmitted by product labeling, signs in the workplace, or warn ings that comply fully with all in formation, training, and labeling requirements of the Federal Oc cupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) hazard communications standard (29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200), the California Hazard Communications Standard (8 C.C.R. Sec. 5194) or. for pesticides, the pesticide and worker safety requirements authorized in the California Food and Agriculture Code Sec. 12980 et seq. Finally, the regulations define an "environmental exposure" as any exposure which is neither an occupational nor a consumer product exposure.25 Specifically, it is one "which may foreseeably occur as the result of contact with an environmental medium." in cluding air. water, soil, vegeta tion, man-made or natural sub stances, through inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or other wise.23 Appropriate warning methods for environmental expo The agency defines an interpre that results from receiving a con sures include signs in the affected tive guideline as a "draft regula sumer service.22 Consumer prod area, notices mailed or delivered tory proposal."19 The request must uct warnings may be transmitted every three months to each oc state the nature of the guideline by either labeling on or accom cupant in the affected area, or requested and the reason for the panying the product; identifica public media announcements request.19 If an interpretive guide tion of the product at the retail once every three months. line is published pursuant to a outlet by means of shelf labeling, No Significant Risk Levels. In request, the agency may later re signs, menus, or some combina another set of emergency regula scind the guideline, propose that tion of the three; or a system of tions, the agency established sev it be formally adopted, or modify it and either republish it as an signs, public advertising, and tollfree telephone information serv eral possible means of determin ing that a particular exposure interpretive guideline or a pro posed regulation.2 ices or any other system providing poses "no significant risk of can a clear and reasonable warning.22 cer."26 The agency has adopted a 58 VVV 000008692 julytsea risk level of one excess cancer in an exposed population of 100.000 as representing no significant risk.27 Pursuant to the emergency regulations, a determination of no significant risk may be made: by performing a quantitative risk as sessment in accordance with the standards described in the regu lations; by showing that a listed chemical poses no significant risk by a particular route of exposure; or by reference to a chemical spe cific regulatory level of no signif icant risk established by the agency in conjunction with the SAP. To date, the agency has es tablished no risk levels under this provision. No significant risk also may be determined by reference to a level adopted by the agency based on existing federal and state stand ards.28 A list of these is included in the regulations, and covers the 29 chemicals for which warnings currently are required. The agency also has promulgated spe cific risk levels for the trace ele ments arsenic (inorganic), beryl lium. and cadmium.29 Finally, as an interim measure, the agency has determined that exposure to listed chemicals in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and med ical devices regulated under fed eral and state safety laws poses no significant risk of cancer.30 The agency reserves the right, how ever. to adopt superseding regu latory levels under this section, following its own quantitative risk assessment of each listed chemi cal. No Observable Effect Levels. In addition to defining no signifi cant risk levels for carcinogens, the agency has promulgated emergency rules addressing no observable effect levels (NOELs) for reproductive toxicants.31 NOELs for such exposures may be based upon either a maximum dose level determined in accord ance with prescribed standards (and divided by 1.000 to arrive at a maximum allowable dose), or by reference to a specific regulatory Chemical TIMES & TRENDS level for the listed chemical. The agency already has established levels for ethylene oxide (20.0 micrograms/day) and lead (0.5 micrograms/day). In addition. NOELs may be established by ref erence to assessments by state or federal agencies which are con ducted in a manner substantially equivalent to the assessment methods prescribed in the regu lations.32 Regulations issued to date have helped to clarify the warning re quirements, but many issues re lating to the discharge prohibition remain unclear. In anticipation of the Oct. 27.1988 effective date for the discharge provision, the agency has published draft regu lations addressing levels of no sig nificant risk for regulated chemi cals in drinking water and meas urement of listed chemicals in discharges or releases to sources of drinking water. The agency proposes to identify as levels of no significant risk: drinking water maximum contaminant levels es tablished by the California De partment of Health Services: drinking water action levels for chemicals for which maximum contaminant levels have not been established; and levels of dis charge or release of chemicals which are permitted by a Re gional Water Quality Control Board in a water quality control plan or waste discharge require ments when such levels are based on consideration of carcinogenic risks associated with such dis charge or release. With regard to measuring listed chemicals in discharges or re leases to sources of drinking water, the agency proposes that the amount of a listed chemical in a discharge or release be deter mined by procedures used or pre scribed by the State Water Re sources Control Board or the Re gional Water Quality Control Board, including procedures con cerning the number of samples and the frequency and site of sam pling. Additional draft regulations addressing discharge issues are likely to circulate in the next few months. Compliance and Enforcement: The Warning Requirement Proposition 65 clearly author izes enforcement actions by the State Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys, and pri vate citizens.13 The citizens suit provision requires 60 days' notice The citizens suit provision requires 60 days' notice to public enforcement officials and the alleged violator. VVV 000008693 to public enforcement officials and the alleged violator. The suit may proceed only if public en forcement officials fail to "dili gently prosecute" the alleged vio lator within those 60 days. In a failure-to-warn case, plain tiffs' evidentiary burden for estab lishing a prima facie case is min imal. Plaintiffs need only demon strate a knowing and intentional exposure of an individual to a listed chemical, with no warning. If a warning is provided, the sole issue will be the adequacy of that warning. There is no need for a plaintiff to show physical harm from exposure, nor is there any injury requirement for an indi vidual to bring suit. Organi zational plaintiffs as well as indi vidual citizens have the opportu nity under Proposition 65 to bring an action. At a February conference spon sored by the Sierra Club, a repre sentative from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office outlined 59 Compliance Checklist To avoid either a public or a private enforcement action under the warning provision, businesses potentially subject to California's Safe DrinkingWater andToxic Enforcement Act should review the following checklist. li_ J* the orfaointfcm responsible for the exposure subject to Proposition S3? ::.y;er ^thnOTfniitattonr'`doing.fairiiiaaerlh Caliiaipiar , J v - .~ "1^appears that adytme selling productsor sagefcae withiit theStmta at r.a]ifhmia that could'r--nit In thetcipoiure of California citizen* to a.listed chemical ia subject to PropositionOS.. Tbo term "businese*' Inchidee nonprofit activities.- - '';XfrDoe*the busteeee employ to or more peoplaf-` - The terna^"employeo*' la broadly defined and' inchidee puf^ims and unlawfully employed employees. Whether or not a busineae empioyx 10 or mom people depends upon the number of employees on the date of the alleged violation... --^.c-irthebusiheeaa-'pubireeQtityTT >. ' v^r' T~ Pendinglegialaiive amenrimemelhalalmoet ceTtaiaiy vrfirHm{it* th< mrapHnn, "perwi in tho rnime nf rlning.hniineea^~ exclude* federatestate; and focafageadea* aad| public wafar.troatxiMiir system*.* .;:%*vK-V /_ 1.bawamiognquinduntfartiefaw? ..c.r-. v.:; - . s there an "expoaoro-1*?' The California.Health amtWeifartr Agency defines the word "expose* an"causing to ingest, inhale, contact vie body surfaces, or otherwise come- into contact with- the chemical.* Companies should be aware of exposures-that may occur outside the normal course- of hniinaia such as exposures Ur volatile organic compounds from leaking underground stonge tanks. In additions. pesticide manufacturers, should be aware, of potential exposure to inert ingredients that are listed chemicals. Notwithstanding a possible preemption dshosa exposure to listed tnert lnysdlents- in pesticides' ia Ekeiy to beone focus ofcitizan suit enforcement. e Dfd the exposure occur in the course of doing business?' ; A person fee considered as doing hminnes regardless of whether ot.whtprfs* to rniidnrted.for.profit. \ . ; Wee the exposure knowing end intentional?" "Koowinif is knowledgeof the fact that exposure to a listed chemical will occur. It ia important to notethat receipt of s 0O*dey noticewill trigger th"knowing* requirement: The regulations make it clear that exposures resulting from negligence are subject to tha wanting requirement.1* ' e Does the level of exposure exceed the levels for no significant risk and no observable effect set forth in the law and regulations? If there is e question whether a current or potential business activity would cause an exposure in violation of the law. companies may consider seeking safe use determina tions in addition to conducting in-house risk sensnumn There are both advantages and disadvantages to this. The principal disadvantage is that safe use determinations are advisory only, and will not preclude an. enforcement action under the law. In wMitiwy a safe use determination ia subject to public, notice and comment. Onus cpasntly^.safe usedeterminatione may be nwfr beneficial a* the planning stages of as nrrtvftrinmhriitgtheiimnfe listed rhanrlraf ' - ... . s-v,. . .* .. a^Pe--.fhep--ne rsspsnsifife frn ttyepoa--r.hasy*a;daty Be-unnr others in the The; law wane- that the duty- to wan iNniiW wETpriinacity on the mennfoctnnr. pacfcagstc or prnresror.rathertde'^jhr^rrtstfiif-lfTii f iiilfliirMS the. izoplementlngi iiiHiimhiiM saqutomanyLpacMK i ritotteunsfagtnasyjnsduisay aseernbfee ha^bnu.dleaibala^jamae -seire'sei ntfutofotoltoflBforiff/fc eonanmeg:product witk knemdadgetfiakar-isMEniamle reguaed^toprorhfaiih^weenhtg to any petsao to.wbro the producr iemfagffrtmnriBnmh^niiMsipimtffyr aay-maguibctmw:pTOC8eacr:ar . dit In ...mi .1 ,..,-hi|rfa..^r..Wf. . ' h. ------*---Vf-indllg ij^dbcraarf ig-: `^fr*tRar eii^tSasiiiiaiirarT^rfifniLlanne'reaeiiihaMr'nih iiTalel'ftVBiak'e rlia waiiiiiig maaMgeamfinbtbtq the individual price to expoenrm, Whether*,wemingle claa^and raasonabihi qrcouinabydttdepend, on. the particular efnamuttancsieofeach-case.. It{* rwaeurshls.wamigg'/egttlaHrnii either is unfowanmul ai Ifnnreg toaepemtolitigatioft >. -Sit?fothewnnri&^csquiiemsirt praamptodT The- FaderifcTuaectiddi. Fungiode and Rr>dentlcldeiAct.'th4-Federal Hasarddue Subetaaces Act. andthe Occupational Safety and Health Act offer substantialpreemption defenses. Furthermore. California already has acknowledged preemption at Ieast*ori an interim basis under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Proponentsof Proposition 65 plan to challenge the Agency's decision to exempt FFDCA-tegulated products; 60 four factors that his office will ex amine in determining whether to bring a Proposition 65 enforce ment action: the number people exposed to the chemical in the affected area; the health and safety risk posed by the specific release or exposure; the quality of available evidence; and the "out rageousness" of the alleged viola tors' conduct or activity. David Roe. co-author of the law and senior attorney at the Envi ronmental Defense Fund, listed the factors he considers important in determining whether to initiate a citizens suit: the seriousness of the exposure, based on exposure level, number, or susceptibility of population exposed and length of exposure: failure of the defendant to have conducted studies and quantified exposures in advance of the enforcement action: and ab sence of good faith compliance ef forts (see Sidebar). VVV 000008694 Litigation There are several potential sources of litigation under Propo sition 65. For example, propo nents of the law already have stated that they intend to chal lenge several aspects of the agen cy's warning regulations, includ ing the use of a toll-free number to warn of consumer product ex posures. and the proposed word ing of the warnings themselves. The first challenge to the law was filed by the Committee for Uni form Regulation in Labeling(CURL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Cali fornia on Feb. 26. 1988. CURL, comprising a number of food processing and packaging-related companies, challenged the law on a variety of federal and state con stitutional grounds, including burden on interstate commerce, equal protection, due process, and violation of California's single is sue initiative rule. The CURL lawsuit is likely to be but the first Continued on page (54 fuly 1988 sumer must rely on professional services to replace the effective ness and efficiency of aerosols. Jobs which the consumer had done inexpensively with aerosol products would cost much more since a professional would have to be hired to complete the job. Even the professionals would find that aerosol alternatives cost more in labor and materials. Higher costs ultimately would be borne by the consumer. Black Market Although a state can stop retail sales of products in a particular locale, consumers could, and in all likelihood would, purchase these products by traveling out side the district. This encourages increased use of automotive transportation, the primary cause of ozone depletion, to obtain prod ucts elsewhere. By inducing such behavior, a consumer product restriction would defeat the precise purpose of the SIP. If the proposed control measure prompts only a few ad ditional automobile trips per day, the resultant hydrocarbon ex haust emission in the area could more than wipe out the most op timistic projections of hydrocar bon reductions. Conclusion Any attempt to reduce VOCs with a ban on aerosols or a refor mulation requirement (in effect, a ban) will have little, if any, impact on hydrocarbon emissions or ozone depletion and indeed may even be counterproductive to the goal of pollution control. Further more, such a measure would not be cost-effective, placing an ex traordinary financial burden on the consumer and on the indus try, and would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Therefore, states considering measures to reduce VOCs should apply a thoughtful, scientific ap proach and avoid a blind kneejerk reaction to the deadline and political pressures of the Clean Air Act. The solution for an effective ap proach to ozone attainment can be accomplished. Congress must legislate changes which do more than set a standard. Such changes must establish a reasonable, sci entifically valid, risk-effective plan for attainment over a realis tic period of time. This may even require reevaluation of the crite ria for determining standards within the law. Lawmakers who seek to use the CAA deadlines as leverage to reauthorize the law and, thereby, load it with draconian controls would better serve the public's interest in focusing on more real istic measures which can be rea sonably expected to achieve com pliance with NAAQS. It is, however, unlikely that Congress will pass such CAA leg islation before the current exten sions runs out in August. In the interim, attempts by states to re duce VOCs without careful con siderations are only adding to the Rube Goldberg confusion. The so lution rests not only with the states but also with Congress in achieving a more realistic law. John Murphy Director Legislative Affairs, CSMA Complying with Proposition 65 Continued from page 60 in a long line of court actions nec essary to clarify the scope and re quirements of this controversial law. Footnotes 1. California Health and Safety Code 25249.5-25249.11 2. The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Substances Act of 1986, Sec. 1. 3. California Health and Safety Code 25249.11. Two bills, As sembly Bill No. 1028 and Senate Bill No. 269, have been intro duced in the California legislature that would eliminate the public entity exemption. It is widely be lieved that such an amendment will pass the legislature this year. 4. Id. 25249.8 (a), (b). 5. Id. 25249.9. 6. Id. 25249.11(c). 7. Id. 25249.6. 8. Id. 25249.11(f). 9. Id. 25249.10. 10. Id. 25249.7. 11. The Agency has promulgated emergency regulations relating to the authority, duties and compo sition of the SAP. See Calif. Ad min. Code Title 22, 1230112305 (1988). 12. Calif. Admin. Code Title 22, 12201(c). 13. Id. 12201(d). 14. See California Health and Safety Code 25249.11(d). 15. Calif. Admin. Code Title 22, 12101-12305. 16. Id. 12104. 17. Id. 12104(c). 64 18. Id. 12104(a), (f). 19. Id. 12103. 20. Id. 12201(b). 21. Id. 12601(a). 22. Id. 12601(b). 23. Id. 12601(b)(5). 24. Id. 12601(c). 25. Id. 12601(d). 26. Id. 12701-12713. 27. Id. 12703. 28. See Id. 12711. 29. Id. 12709. yyy 000000695 30. Id. 12713. 31. Id. 12801-12805. 32. Id. 12805(C). 33. Calif. Health and Safety Code 25249.7. 34. Id. 25249.11(b). 35. Calif. Admin. Code. Title 22. 12201(c). 36. Id. 12601 (b)(5). July 1988