SPI appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission's (Commission) proposed amendment §116.119, De Minimis Facilities or Sources. SPI appreciates the Commission's efforts to establish criteria for facilities that emit de minimis amounts of air contaminants that would not need preconstruction authorization.

SPI supports the development of criteria for establishing de minimis levels of air contaminants, including the establishment of a list of "de minimis facilities and sources" as shown in §116.119. SPI believes that the permitting of sources that emit very small quantities of air contaminants and that cause no discernable impact to public health or the environment is an inappropriate use of both public and private sector resources. A significant number of SPI’s members in Texas are small businesses for whom the need for preconstruction authorization represents a significant regulatory compliance burden. SPI, therefore, is pleased that the state is developing criteria for facilities that emit a de minimis amount of air contaminants that would not need preconstruction authorization.

SPI has concerns, however, about some of the proposed rates of material usage that would be used to determine whether a facility or source could be considered de minimis, as discussed at §116.119 (a)(2). In particular, SPI believes that the prescribed rate of 50 gallons per year for cleaning and stripping solvents as shown at §116.119 (a)(2)(A) is an unnecessarily low usage figure and will significantly restrict the number of small facilities that might otherwise qualify as de minimis sources. Likewise the prescribed rate of 100 gallons per year of coatings (excluding plating materials) as shown at §116.119 (a)(2)(B) appears unnecessarily restrictive. The Commission should consider the establishment of higher throughput / material usage limits for these two categories.

SPI also has concerns about the process for amending the list of facilities or sources considered de minimis, as described in §116.119 (c)(1). In particular, SPI is concerned that a third party (i.e., a party other than the Commission or one of the listed facilities or sources) might petition the Commission to delete a listed facility without adequate opportunity for the listed facility to respond to the petition. SPI urges the Commission to provide adequate notice and opportunity for response by the owners of listed facilities or sources should a petition be submitted by a third party that could affect the listed status of the facility or source.