Comment Log Display

Here is the comment you selected to display.

Comment 35 for Proposed Amendments to the ATCM for Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations (chromeatcm2023) - 45 Day.

First NameZain
Last NameYahya
SubjectATCM for hex chrome
I am still trying to understand the basis for this ruling. If the
goal is protect the public health then why are we instituting a ban
on this process as opposed to regulating it. The industry accounts
for less than 1% of hex chrome emissions in the state. Why not
target a larger chunk of the pie. Also, when the industry welcomes
regulation and says we can get that number down even further. Why
would CARB choose a ban rather than working with industry and
helping to reduce those emissions. 

Businesses will be forced to close, thousands of jobs will be lost,
supply chains and consumers will have to find sources outside of
the State of California(this impact cannot be overstated). Other
States that do not have the regulations and controls that
California shops have in place.

The three finishes of Decorative, Functional Chrome Metal Finishing
Chromic Acid Anodizing represent less than 1% of total ChromeVI
Emissions for the entire State of California. Why does this warrant
a ban?

Fun Fact: Based on the reported annual emissions CARB provided
(2018-2019) all of the decorative chrome platers in the state
emitted less hexavalent chromium at .00856 lbs per year than the
popular theme park resort in Anaheim at 0.106 lbs per year.

Please reconsider this draconian rule that continues to be
illogical given the stated goals of CARB.

Original File Name
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted 2023-01-11 13:13:07

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.

Board Comments Home