P.1 

OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

32)IX-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/11/2008 3:03:46 PM Sheet 32 of 90 
P.2_ 

\ 

.-.. 

' • 

^r^yi'-te?"???- fyrcs ="-*.-: T v ;.-oa;. ;.-:r 

1 ^ES3 ^E^ 

*w •• |^pw^gj5^^^F^ 9 

.:.,...- ' • • •• v • .• •' ••- ' 

Tuesday 

July 10, 1990 

TO IS E IS 0 W H 

;.| jj I { " ' 

ifJl! JUL 2 7 1990 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions to 

Vinyl Chloride; Equipment Leaks of 

Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final 

Rule 
P.3 

HV ^ -ii®SS • IFsfasJt E&sg8atog /. ¥o t SS, .Wo; 132 / Tuesday, filly IQVlggQ- / Rules and Regulations 

I^^MCaiKnTAIL IMslOTieTOK) reasonable fee may b® charged fo? 

Maltoua!) Issatocten) Sfianxatestolo tf®p 

Masa^tettso Aft? MWtesaflss KovOalteno te 

:§STXaK25£® 

WoJado IHl£sa?igl®(yio AOc ^©iyteinitofliantasv: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

flOTJ@KE Final rule. 

syracOQlsn?: On September 21.1989 (54 FR 

38938). EPA proposed minor revisions to 

national emission standards for vinyl 

chloride (VC) and equipment leaks of 

volatile hazardous air pollutants. The 

revisions to die national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) were proposed as a result of 

petitions for reconsideration and review 

filed by the Society of the Plastics 

Industry, Inc. (SPI), Dow Chemical 

Company, Georgia Gulf Corporation, 

and Vista Chemical Company. This 

action promulgates final revisions to the 

NESHAP. The intended effect of this 

action is to grant the petitioners' request 

for clarification of ambiguities in several 

definitions and in the applicability of 

certain regulatory requirements in the 

standards. 

This notice is not intended to address 

the July 28.1987, decision by the D.C. 

Circuit Court on the VC standards, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, inc. 

v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1148 (1987). Any 

response to that decision will be made 

in a future notice in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 10,1990. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. judicial 

review of NESHAP is available only by 

filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of . 

Columbia Circuit on or before 

September 10,1990. Under section 

307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the 

requirements that are the subject of 

today's notice may not be challenged 

later in civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

AOOKESSS8: Docket. A docket, number 

A-81-21. containing information 

considered by EPA in the development 

of the promulgated standards and the 

petitions for reconsideration, to which 

this notice is responding, is available for 

public inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 

3:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, at 

EPA's Air Docket Section (LE-131). 

Room M15C0, First Floor. 401 M Street 

SW.. Washington. DC 20460. A 

P®C3 PW3TOQJ3 BMP©CQE3A7!]@K) @®OTA©Jt' 

For further information and 

interpretations of applicability, 

compliance requirements, and reporting 

aspects of the revised standards, contact 

the appropriate Regional, State, or local 

office contact as listed in 40 CFR 80.4. 

For further information on the 

background for the final revised 

standards, contact Ms. Shirley Tabler, 

Standards Development Branch, 

Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. telephone. (919) 541-5256. 

SUimgMEWTAfilV INFOBR3AYIOCE 

In December. 1975, EPA designated 

VC as a hazardous air pollutant under 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7412) and promulgated final rules 

for VC on October 21,1978 (40 CFR 

61.60-61.71); The standards limit 

emissions of VC from plants producing 

ethylene dichloride (EDC) via 

oxychlorination. VC, and polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) or other polymers 

containing VC. These plants are subject 

to a combination of emission limits, 

equipment, and work practice 

requirements at numerous points in the 

manufacturing processes. 

On September 30,1986 (51 FR 34904), 

EPA promulgated several administrative 

and clarifying revisions to the national 

emission standard for VC. Subsequently, 

on November 26.1986. SPI filed with 

EPA a petition for stay and 

administrative reconsideration of seven 

provisions in the final revisions to the 

VC standard. The SPI, Dow Chemical 

Company, Ceorgia Gulf Corporation, 

and Vista Chemical Company 

concurrently filed a petition for review 

of several provisions of the revised 

standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit. The petitioners 

asserted that without adequate notice, 

EPA's 1988 revisions changed key 

provisions of the VC standard in a 

manner that: (1) violated case law; (2) 

imposed new penalties; (3) created 

multiple penalties for the same event; 

and (4) expanded the types of equipment 

subject to the standard. 

In summary, the petitioners requested 

review of the definitions of "exhaust 

gas," "relief valve discharge." "leak," 

"3-hour period," and "ethylene 

dichloride purification"; the scope of the 

relief valve discharge provisions; and 

the leak detection and elimination 

provisions (area monitoring). The SPI 

also requested that EPA issue a stay of 

the 1986 revisions to the VC standard 

pending review of those revised 

provisions. 

The revisions proposed on September 

21,1989, were im regard to clarifications 

to the definitions. No changes, however, 

were made with regard to fixed area 

monitoring requirements or the relief 

valve discharge standard. In the 1989 

proposal preamble, EPA also denied the 

petitioner's request for a stay of the 1986 

revised provisions. A detailed 

discussion of the issues presented in the 

petitions for review and EPA's response 

to the issues is contained in the 

preamble for the proposed revisions (54 

FR 38938-38942). 

IL Public Participation 

The proposed revisions to the 

NESHAP were published in the Federal 

Register on September 21,1989 (54 FR 

38938). A public hearing was scheduled 

on October 18,1989. However, there 

were no requests for a hearing. The 

public comment period lasted from 

September 21,1989 to November 20, 

1989. Two comment letters were 

received from the industry, both of 

which had filed petitions for review of 

the 1988 revisions. Both commenters 

expressed their support of the proposed 

revised provisions of September 21, 

1989, and stated that the revised 

provisions respond to the concerns filed 

in their petitions for review. The 

commenters did not request any 

additional changes to the NESHAP. 

III. The Promulgated Revisions 

The clarifying revisions being 

promulgated today are identical to those 

proposed on September 21,1989. The 

following is a summary of the 

promulgated revisions. 

A. The definition of "exhaust gas" has 

been modified by adding two sentences 

which clarify that a leak is not an 

exhaust gas, and that equipment 

containing exhaust gas must comply 

with the leak detection and prevention 

provisions (§ 61.85(b)(8)), whether or not 

that equipment contains 10 percent by 

volume VC. This addition assures that 

leaks from exhaust gas streams are 

subject to the leak detection and 

elimination requirements, but that such 

leaks will not also be classified as 

"exhaust gas." 

B. Minor revisions were made to the 

definition of "relief valve discharge" 

and to the relief valve discharge (RVD) 

provisions (§ 61.65(a)) to clarify that an 

RVD routed to a properly designed and 

operated control device would be 

exempted from the provisions of the 

RVD standard. This change prevents 

misinterpretation of the regulatory 
P.4 

EFjjw*^: 

Federal Register /Vol. 55; No, 132 / Tuesday,* July 10V 1990 / Rulesand Regulations 2834? 

requirements and imposition of a double 

penalty. 

In addition, new provisions 

(8 61.65(d)) have been added for an RVD 

that is ducted to a control device that is 

continually operating while emissions 

from the release are present at the 

device. An RVD that is ducted to a 

control device, other than a flare, would 

be subject to the 10 ppm limit and the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

requirement contained in J 61.88 and to 

the reporting requirements of § 61.70. In 

the case of flares, emission monitoring is 

not possible. Therefore, for RVD's 

routed to a flare, the design 

requirements for flares (40 CFR 60.18) 

would apply. The EPA recognizes that 

measurement of relief valve discharge 

volumetric flow rates and gas stream 

composition is not possible using the 

methods set forth in 8 60.18 (f)(3) and 

(f)(4). Estimates of these parameters 

will, therefore, need to be based on 

empirical or other bases, subject to EPA 

approval. Flare operations would be 

monitored in accordance with the 

requirements of §8 60.18(d) and 

60.18(f)(2). For the purpose of § 60.18(d), 

the volume and component 

concentration of each RVD would be 

estimated and calculations would be 

made to verify ongoing compliance with 

the design and operating requirements 

of $ 60.18 (c)(3) through (c)(6). If more 

than one relief valve is discharged 

simultaneously to a single flare, these 

calculations would account for the 

cumulative effect on all such RVD's. If 

the results of the monitoring contained 

in $ 60.18(f)(2) or any other information 

show that the pilot flame is not present 

100 percent of the time during which an 

RVD is routed to a flare, the RVD is 

subject to the provisions of § 61.65(a). A 

report describing the flare design must 

be provided to the Administrator not 

later than 90 days after the adoption of 

this provision or within 30 days of the 

installation of a flare system for control 

of RVD's. whichever is later. 

C. The standards for pumps in VC 

service (§ 61.242-2(d)) were revised to 

clarify the requirements for pump seal 

drips. Section 61.242-2(d)(4) addresses 

drips from pump seals that contain VC, 

and § 61.242-2(d](6) addresses drips 

from pump seals that do not contain VC 

The final revised provisions of 

3 81.242-2(d) are designed to accomplish 

two purposes. One is to ensure that VC 

leaks from pump seals are detected and 

eliminated. This is accomplished by 

paragraphs (d)(4) (i), (ii), and (iii). The 

other purpose is to identify and prevent 

pump seal failures by causing abnormal 

dripping (even when VC is not 

contained in the dripping liquid) to be 

detected and repairs to be made; Thi»i* 

accomplished by paragraphs (d)(6) (i), 

(iii), and (iv). These paragraphs require 

the facility owner or operator to 

establish criteria associated with normal 

operation. 

The intent of the final provisions is 

identical to the existing provision. The 

difference is that the promulgated 

provisions of 8 61.242-2(d)(6)(i] allow an 

owner or operator to take into account 

the small number of liquid drips that 

may occur when new seals are in place 

or are otherwise associated with normal 

operation. 

D. The definition of "3-hour period" 

has been revised to ensure that a single 

event of 1-hour or less at 10 ppm or 

greater could result in no more than a 

single violation of the exhaust gas 

standard. A phrase has been added to 

the definition of "3-hour period" in 

§ 61.51(z) to accomplish this. The EPA 

did not intend to penalize a plant three 

times whenever a 10 ppm event occurs 

within 1 hour. Rather, EPA wanted to 

ensure that a combination of two or 

more 10 ppm events which would result 

in a 3-hour exceedance do not go 

unpenalized just because they occurred 

over two separate 3-hour "blocks." The 

promulgated revised definition of "3-

hour period" satisfies EPA's intent 

without unintentionally subjecting a 

plant owner or operator to multiple 

violations. 

E. The definition of "EDC purification" 

has been revised to clarify that 

emissions from crude, intermediate, and 

final storage tanks following EDC 

formation are not subject to the exhaust 

gas standard. (The 1986 revisions 

exempted only final storage tanks.) In 

addition, $ 61.65(b)(6), Opening of 

equipment, has also been revised to 

clarify that the requirements in this 

section do not apply to crude, 

intermediate, or final EDC storage tanks. 

As stated in the proposal preamble, the 

regulation of these storage tanks is 

unnecessary because emissions are 

extremely low. 

F. In addition to the changes made in 

response to the petitions for 

reconsideration, a minor clarification 

has been made in 8 61.68, Emission 

monitoring. Since it is obvious that 

paragraph (a) of 8 61.68 calls for the 

monitoring of the emissions from 

prescribed sources for vinyl chloride 

and not ambient air sampling as 

required under 3 61.65(b)(8) for leak 

detection/elimination, 8 61.68(b) has 

been clarified to require that 

representative (not air) samples from 

one or more applicable emission points 

be obtained and analyzed. This 

promulgated revision more accurately 

reflects the original intent. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered by 

EPA in the development of this 

rulemaking. The docketing system is 

intended to allow members of the public 

and industries involved to readily 

identify and locate documents so that 

they can effectively participate in the 

rulemaking process. Along with the 

statement of basis and purpose of the 

proposed and promulgated revisions, 

and EPA responses to significant 

comments, the contents of the docket, 

except for interagency review materials, 

will serve as the record in case of 

judicial review (sec 307(d)(7)(A)). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no additional information 

collection requirements associated with 

this rulemaking. 

C. Executive Order 12291 

Under Executive Order 12291. EPA 

must judge whether a regulatory action 

is "major" and, therefore, subject to the 

requirement of a regulatory impact 

analysis. This final rulemaking is not 

major because it makes minor clarifying 

revisions to an existing regulation and, 

therefore, results in none of the 

significant adverse economic effects 

described in Ihe Order. 

This rulemaking was submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review as required by 

Executive Order 12291. Any written 

comments from OMB to EPA and any 

EPA response to those comments are 

included in Docket No. A-81-21. The 

docket is available for public inspection 

at EPA's Air Docket Section that is 

listed under the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 

identification of potentially adverse 

impacts of Federal regulations upon 

small business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those 

instances where small business impacts 

are possible. Because these minor 

revisions impose no adverse economic 

impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has not been conducted. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), I hereby certify that the final rule 

will not have a significant economic 
P.5 

2ZMM Eedfal, Registee h Yofc 58x,No>. tSfc^TueidbiR: Jnly B)>. 109ft,/ ftufes aoil ft&guknbbna 

unp^B»oate^BubetaiitiafaBinKa*.offwrnnlli i 

entities. 

ListofSub^a*4B4»CWfcPa«r6*, 

Air pollution control Asbestos*; 

Benzene, Beryllium. Coke oven 

emission* Hajtardtee ssbstaneesv 

Incorporatlons-byreiereiieg. Inorgani*" 

arsenia Intergovernmental rotation* 

Mercury, RadienuoHdeev Reportingaiid' 

recordkeeping requirements* VlnyM 

chloride; Volatile^iazardOwaw 

pollutants* 

Dated: July. 3:1990: 

William IC RailTjr,. 

Administrator. 

For thebesians set forthUn ths> 

preamble 40 CFR perf8l:i» amended as 

follows^ 

PART 61~-fAMENOED}. 

1. Theauthority citation for part 61 

continues to read-as follows! 

AuUtenty: 9BCSJ 101. .112:.114.110*301.. 

CUan Air. Act aa amended (42.U.S.C 7401.. 

7412. 7414, 7416. 7601). 

2. Section 61.61 is. amended by 

revising paragraphs (o). (w)," (x). (y).and 

(z) tcrreadrasfollowsj 

§eij8i- Definition. 

(0) Ethylene dichloride purification 

includes any.part of the process of; 

ethylene dichloride purification 

following ethylene dichloride formation, 

but excludescrude, intermediate, and 

final ethylene dichloride storage tanks. 

(vv) Leak means any of several events 

that indicate interruption of confinement 

of vinyl chloride within processequipment. Leaks include events 

regulated under subpart V of thispartsuch asr 

(1) An instrument reading of 10,000; 

ppm or greater measured according tw 

Method 21 (see appendix A of 40 CFR 

part 60); 

(2) A sensor detection of failure of a 

seal system, failure of a barrier fluid 

system* or both;: 

(3) Detectable emissions aa indicated 

by an instrument reading of greater than 

500 pom above background for 

equipment designated for.no detectableemissions measured according to .Test. 

Method 21 (see appendix A ^of 40 CFRpart .60); and; 

(4) Ih the case of pump seals regulated 

under 5-61.242-2_indications of liquid 

dripping constituting.-a-leak under 

5 61.242-2.. 

Leaks-also includeevents regulated 

under-3<61.65(.b){8)(i)jfor.detectioniof 

ambient concen trations-in excess of: 

bawl^uas^MBerf^ianai Atrefcefc 

valve diactejrsoiadtohe leak. 

(x)Lfi)cAa«»^e«<Beafl»1anyioffgftft3(the; 

constitueats*oftwlHQl><meyj consist ofiaoyj 

fluid»*.either aa »liquid ajidVar.gas); 

discharged directly or ultimatelvftather 

a tmosphire-. that waaiinilially. contained 

in orjwasJn,dirBcLcontact.with, the 

equipment for. whichbgasjimits are. 

prescribed in-}!63.62(a) ^nd^h)^ 

6i;63(a); 81.6!J:(a)tlV (BjacX.and^dU. 

81.651b)(l)niK (b)(2), (b)(3). (b)(5K. 

(b)(6)(H), (b)f7)l,and>(bK9)(i-i)!.an4-

8i:6S(d). A.leak aa defined in paragraph 

(w) of'this section is not an exhaust gas. 

Equipment which contains exhaust gas 

is subject-to- S^l^r/NtH, whether-or.-not. 

that.equipment'containslOpereent'by 

vol ume-vinyl chloride* 

(y) Relief valve=discharge means-arty 

nonleak discharged hrough a reiief-Valye. 

(z) S^our period means^any threeconsecutive- l-haur<periods-(eacrrcommencing on the-hour); provided that 

thenumbw of 3-hour periodswinringj< 

which the vinyl chlarideaconcentration'. 

exceeds-.lOppraxldea not exceed thai 

number ofl-how-periods during, whiebi 

the vinyl chloride concentre tiomexceedsi 

10 ppm. 

3: Sectroir61.63'isamended-byrevisingparagraphs (a) and(b)(6)' 

introductory/text, and adding paragraph 

(d) to read asfollowsr 

§81.65. Emission standardfo*ethyl«fl*-

dichloride, vinyl chloride and polyvinylchloride plantsw. 

(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for 

an emergency relief discharge, and. 

except as provided in § 61.65(d). there is 

to be no discharge to the atmosphere 

from any relief valve on any. equipment 

in vinyl chloride service. An emergency 

relief discharge means a discharge 

which could not have been avoided by 

taking measures to preyent the 

discharge. Within 10 days of any.relief 

valve discharge, except for those subject 

to § 61.65(d); the owner or operator of 

the source from which the relief valve 

discharge occurs shall submit to theAdministrator a report in writingcontaining information on the source, 

nature and cause of the discharge, the-, 

date and time of the discharge; the 

approximate total vinyl chloride loss' 

during thediscbarge. the method used 

for determining;the vinyl chloride loss 

(the calculation of the vinyl chlorideloss), the action that was taken to 

prevent thedischarge. and measures) 

adopted to prevent future discharges; 

(b) * ••-

(6) Opening.of equipment.. Vinyl, 

chloride emissions tframropening.-af 

equipment.(excluding crude,. 

intermediate; andiinal EDC stosage 

tanksoJb»ttirinh>tUiig4pxt!polymematiaro 

reactors used in the manufacture of imlk. 

resins and loadinfoinmtcadingJinesr 

that'amnot opeeedntttthe atmospheres 

afWeacteloadfagjoruirioading) 

operau^l-aflejttebeTminimizedfdkxtvsz: 

• • - *. .. ** 

(d) A^RVD^that i»>ducted toa-corrtrol" 

device«that is corrtmually^operating; 

while emissions-from thereleaseerepresent at.the devieenasubject to the 

following requirements* 

(1) Adischarge-fromaicontrordeyiceotherthan-a flare shall not exceed 1CF 

ppm (average overa-3-houp period) as> 

determined by thex»ntmuoos emission 

monitor eye tern required under $"61:68; 

Such a> discharge is<8nbject to.tberequirements of 'J 61.70. 

(2)Foradischargerouted toe flare, 

the flare: shall comply-wrth therequirements of 8- 60.18. 

(i) Flare-operations shall be-monitoredi 

in accordance-with the requirements of 

8ff-6ai8(d)and«6.18(f)(2). For thepurposes'of 3<60.18(d), the volume and: 

component concentration of each relief 

valve discharge shall be estimated and 

calculation-shall be made to verify, 

ongoing compliance with the^design and 

operating requirements of 88 60.18(c)(3) 

through (b)(6). If more than one relief 

valve is discharged simultaneously to a 

single flare, these calculations shall 

account for the cumulative effect of all 

such relief Valve discharges, These 

calculations shall be made and reported 

quarterly for all discharges within the 

quarter. Failure-to comply with any of 

the requirements of this paragraph will 

be a violation of § 61.63(d)(2). 

Monitoring for the presence of a flare 

pilot flame shall be conducted in 

accordance with § 60.18(f)(2). If the 

results of this monitoring or any other 

information shows that the pilot flame is 

not present 100 percent of the time 

during which a-relief valve discharge is 

routed to the flare, the relief valve 

discharge is subject to the provisions of 

§ 61.65(a). 

(ii) A report describing the flare 

design shall be provided to theAdministrator not later than 90 days 

after, the adoption of this provision or 

within 30 days of the installation of a 

flare system for control of relief valve 

discharge-whichever is later.-The flare 

design report shall include calculations 

based upon expected relief valve 

discharge.component concentrations, 

and net heating values (for PVC this 

calculation shall be based on values 

expected.ifa release occurred at the 

instant:the;polymerization starts): and 

estimated maximum-exit velocities: 

based upon the-design throat capacity of 

the gasdn^the relief valve.. 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 28349 

4. Section 61.88 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

861.6S Emission monitoring. 

• * » • • 

(b) The vinyl chloride monitoring 

system(s) used to meet the requirement 

in paragraph (a) of this section is to be a 

device which obtains representative 

samples from one or more applicable 

emission points on a continuous 

sequential basis and analyzes the 

samples with gas chromatography or, if 

the owner or operator assumes that all 

hydrocarbons measured are vinyl 

chloride, with infrared 

spectrophotometry, flame ion detection, 

or an alternative method. * * * 

• • * * * 

5. Section 61.242-2 of subpart V is 

amended by revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text (d)(5), and (d)(6), and 

by adding paragraphs (d)(4) (i), (ii) and 

(iii) to read as follows: 

§61.242-2 Standards: Pumps. 

(d) Each pump equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a 

barrier fluid system is exempt from the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section, provided the following 

requirements are met: 

**** * 

(4) ' • * 

(i) If there are indications of liquid 

dripping from the pump seal at the time 

of the weekly inspection, the pump shall 

be monitored as specified in 3 61.245 to 

determine the presence of VOC and 

VHAP in the barrier fluid. 

(ii) If the monitor reading (taking into 

account any background readings). 

indicates the presence of VHAP, a leak 

is detected. For the purpose of this 

paragraph, the monitor may be 

calibrated with VHAP, or may employ a 

gas chromatography column to limit the 

response of the monitor to VHAP, at the 

option of the owner or operator. 

(iii) If an instrument reading of 10,000 

ppm or greater (total VOC) is measured, 

a leak is detected 

(5) Each sensor as described in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section is 

checked daily or is equipped with an 

audible alarm. 

(6)(i) The owner or operator 

determines, based on design 

considerations and operating 

experience, criteria applicable to the 

presence and frequency of drips and to 

the sensor that indicates failure of the 

seal system, the barrier fluid system, or 

both. 

(ii) If indications of liquids dripping 

from the pump seal exceed the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this 

section, or if, based on the criteria 

established in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this 

section, the sensor indicates failure of 

the seal system, the barrier fluid system, 

or both, a leak is detected 

(iii) When a leak is detected it shall 

be repaired as soon as practicable, but 

no later than 15 calendar days after it is 

detected except as provided in 3 61.242-

10. 

(iv) A first attempt at repair shall be 

made no later than five calendar days 

after each leak is detected. 

[FR Doc. 90-16015 Filed 7-9-90: 8:45 am] 

WLUNQ COOC UfO-CO-M