### Attachment E

- 5

Using Representative Sampling and Extrapolation to Evaluate Compliance with Generator Recordkeeping , Reporting, and Monitoring Requirements Not Contained in a Permit

I. Generator Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Unrelated to Opacity

N ew Cingular currently estimates that there are approximately 435 Legacy AWS facilities with generator recordkeeping or reporting requirements , unrelated to opacity monitoring, that are not contained in a permit. A contractor made a preliminary evaluation of the available generator information and the applicable regulations to provide this updated estimate in response to EPA’s request. New Cingular has not determined whether these requirements are federally enforceable and reserves the right to assert a la ck of enforceability or other defenses with respect to these requirements.

The number of facilities may change as a result of the data collection and compliance evaluation processes that New Cingular will undertake during the audit. For instance, the au dit may provide new information about the generators at a facility

, indicating that a recordkeeping or reporting requirement applies. Similarly, the audit or may reach a different interpretation of an existing regulation. The audit may also show that the recordkeeping or reporting requirement in a particular jurisdiction is not federally enforceable. In other jurisdictions, such as Alabama, New Cingular might not learn of a recordkeeping requirement until after the state agency receives and evaluates a ge nerator notification that the Company submits to correct a potential violation that it discovers, if any.

The following example illustrates how the extrapolation process authorized by section I.B.3 of the protocol would work, if the Company chooses that option. The sample size is obtained by applying a 90% confidence level along with a n error level of plus or minus 7.5% to the facility universe. Assuming the audit confirmed that 435 facilities was the correct number of

facilities subject to a recordkeep ing or reporting requireme nt not contained in a permit , New Cingular would review the records for 95 facilities which is 2 2 % of the total

.

Next, the Company would perform site visits at 2 0% of the sampled locations (i.e., 1 9 facilities) to check the acc uracy of the information and records sent to the auditors. The locations visited would be representative of the types of facilities (e.g., cell towers) having generators subject to such requirements. To evaluate the compliance status of the remaining 34 0 facilities, New Cingular would extrapolate the “fail” rate of the 95 sampled facilities.

II. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Pertaining to Opacity

New Cingular has not yet determined how many, if any, of the generators located at the Legacy AWS facilities are s ubject to federally

- enforceable monitoring and/or recordkeeping requirements pertaining to opacity that are not contained in a permit. To the extent that there are such requirements and New Cingular elects to use statistical sampling to evaluate generator compliance with those requirements, the Company would undertake a process similar to the one outlined below, making adjustments as necessary to help ensure the reliability of the results.2

New Cingular would begin by identifying those jurisdictions in wh ich Legacy AWS facilities are located and which have federally

- enforceable monitoring and/or recordkeeping requirements pertaining to opacity. Within each of those jurisdictions, the Company would then identify all of the facilities that have generators s ubject to such requirements that are not contained in a permit. That would define the population of relevant facilities (the “Pool”). Next, it would group those facilities together and randomly sample from that population

.

The number of facilities samp led would depend upon the size of the Pool. Specifically, New Cingular would use the size of the Pool to calculate the sample size necessary to enable the Company to be at least 90% confident that the compliance rate of the sampled facilities would be

wit hin 7.5%, plus or minus, of the actual rate of compliance of the Pool.

For each of the sampled facilities, New Cingular would collect and review the relevant records. Next, the Company would supplement its records review by performing site visits to

2 0 % of the sampled facilities to check the accuracy of the information and records sent to the

auditors. The locations visited would be representative of the various facility types in the sample. The Company would then extrapolate the “fail” rate of th e sa mpled facilities to those facilities that had not been sampled

.