Attachment E

In the Matter of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, et al., Docket No. EPCRA

- HQ

- 2009

-

8001, CWA

- HQ

- 2009

- 8001, and CAA

- HQ

- 2009

- 8001

Audit Protocols for Legacy AT&T Wireless Service, Inc (AWS) Sites

This document sets out two separate audit protocols for evaluating certain environmental regulatory compliance obligations at L egacy

- AWS sites , as defined in Paragraph 3 of the above

- referenced Consent Agreement, that Respondent own s or operate s , as described below in Paragraphs I.A. and II.A. In accordance with the terms of the protocol, the first audit will evaluate the stationary and portable emergency backup generators located at the facilities listed in Attachment E

- 1 to this pr otocol for compliance with certain federally

- enforceable air pollution control regulations promulgated by state and local governments, adopted pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, as well as requirements of the Compression Igniti on Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance Standard ( “ NSPS ” ) (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII) and the Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engine N SPS (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart JJJJ) that the Environmental Protection Agency ( “ EPA ” ) promulgated

u nder Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( “ CAA ” ) , 42 U.S.C § 7411. The second audit requires an evaluation of the facilities listed in Attachment E

- 2 to this protocol for compliance with Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (“SPCC”) requirements of Se ction 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(1)(C). Respondent has undertaken these audits in partial settlement of the matters set forth in the Consent Agreement

. This protocol is not a permit and shall n either supplant n or relieve Respondent from any other applicable legal requirements.

I. Clean Air Act Section 110 and 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ

A. Clean Air Act Audit Coverage.

This audit covers the federally

- enforceable requirements contained in State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”), adopted pursuant to Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, that were in effect on June 1, 2009. It also covers requirements contained in the Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance Standard found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII (“Subpart IIII”) and the Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance Standard found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart JJJJ (“Subpart JJJJ”), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act , 42 U.S.C § 7411, that were enforceable on June 1, 2009.

There are 1,3 61 facilities listed in Attachment E

- 1 to this protocol that Respondent has identified as possible locations of Legacy

- AWS stationary and portable emergency backup generators. Respondent made a good faith effort, using reasonably available information, to identify these facilities. This audit will evaluate the compliance of the stationary and portable emergency backup generators located at the facilities listed in Attachment E

- 1
, provided that Respondent continued to own or operate the facilities on June 1, 2009. Available information for each of the generators believed to be currently on

- site is included in Attachment E

- 1

. After the audit is completed

, Respondent will submit to the EPA a final audit report that will include an updated version of the generator information . For each facility, this information will be current through the date that Respondent confirms the generator information for that particular facility. New C ingular will evaluate compliance using this updated information.

### 2

As described in greater detail in the paragraphs below, the audit requires an evaluation of the following federally

- enforceable SIP and Subpart IIII and JJJJ requirements :

1. Is the generator ow ner or operator required to have an air permit

-- state minor source preconstruction or operating, Title V, or Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review ( PSD/NSR )

-- and if so, d oes it have the required permit?

2. Is the generator owner or ope rator required to provide some form of “notice” to claim eligibility for an exemption or permit

- by

- rule, and if so, ha s the required filing been made?

3. If the generator owner or operator has a permit, is the generator in compliance with the terms of the per mit?

4. If the generator owner or operator claims an exemption from permitting, is it in compliance with the requirements necessary to qualify for the exemption?

5. If the generator is subject to substantive air pollution requirements that are not necessarily included in a permit (such as opacity, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emission limits, fuel sulfur requirements, and Subparts IIII and JJJJ emission limit ations), is it in compliance with them?

B. Audit Methodology.

1. Permitting and Notification. With regard to the obligation to obtain a permit, or to provide notice to claim eligibility for an exemption or permit

- by

- rule, Respondent will complete the process it has undertaken to evaluate the applicable law to determine whether the generator was required to obtain a permit or submit a notice, and if so, whether the generator fulfilled that obligation.

2. Substantive Air Pollution Re quirements . For generators that are subject to a substantive air pollution requirement, such as an emission limitation, whether the requirement is contained in a permit or not (including any such requirement that is an eligibility criterion for an exempti on from permitting or is a requirement otherwise applicable to sources that are exempt from permitting), Respondent will evaluate compliance in the following manner.

a. SIP Emission Limitations. For each generator located in a state that imposes federally

enforceable SIP emission limitations for particulate matter (i.e., PM 10 , PM 2.5 , etc., collectively “PM”), nitrogen oxides (“NO x ”), or sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), Respondent will use the methods described in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.i

– v of this protocol to evaluat e generator compliance

. Respondent will use the methods described in Paragraph I.B.2.a. vi to evaluate compliance with federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations for pollutants other than PM, NO x , and SO 2

.
i. (1) Except where otherwise stated, for genera tors with engines that are not subject to New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ, or the federal nonroad emission standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, Respondent will evaluate compliance with PM, NOx, and SO 2 emission limitations for each engine type (e.g., compression

- ignition or spark

- ignition) by utilizing the applicable emission factors that EPA has published in the documents entitled, Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeli ng

- Compression Ignition (EPA 420

- P

- 04

- 009

– April 2004) [hereinafter “Compression

- Ignition Document”] and Exhaust Emission

### 3 Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Spark

- Ignition (EPA 420

- R

- 05

- 019

– Dec. 2005) [hereinafter “Spark

- Ignition Document”] , in accordance with the procedures set out in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii

– i v , below

. For the purposes of this protocol, these documents are collectively referred to as the “nonroad model.”

(2) For generators with engines that are subject to NSPS Subpart II II or Subpart JJJJ, Respondent must first evaluate compliance with the federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations by relying on the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data demonstrating compliance with the applicable NSPS emission limits. If the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data are not available, or not considered reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and proceed to use the methods set out in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii

– i v to demonstrate compliance

(3) For generators with e ngines that are subject to the federal nonroad emissions standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, Respondent must first evaluate compliance with the federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations by relying on the manufacturer’s certification, specif

ication, or data demons trating compliance with the applicable nonroad emission limits. If the manufacturer’s certification, specification, or data are not available, or not considered reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and proceed to use the methods set out in Paragraphs I.B.2.a.ii

– i v to demonstrate compliance

. (4) For generators with engines, such as turbine engines, that are not subject to the New Source Performance Standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII or Subpart JJJJ , or the federal nonroad emission standards in 40 C.F.R. Parts 89, 90, and 1048, and for which the Compression

- Ignition or Spark

- Ignition Documents do not provide emission factors, Respondent must first evaluate compliance with federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations by rel ying on the manufacturer ’s certification, specification, or data for the specific engine make and model . If the manufacturer certification, specification, or data are not available, or not considered reliable, Respondent will notify EPA and proceed to use other reasonably available data/information and best engineering judgment

or perform stack testing in accordanc e with Paragraph I.B.2.a.v below

.
ii. When using the nonroad model t o evaluate compliance with PM and NO x SIP emission limitations, Respondent will select the applicable zero

- hour steady state emission factors in Table A2 of the Compression

- Ignition Document or Tables 4

– 6 of the Spark

- Ignition Document , as applicable, adjust those factors for engine deterioration and fuel content limits, as re quired below , and then compare engine emission estimates with the applicable limitations ( s ee tables in Attachment E

- 3 )

. a) For compression

- ignition engines, Respondent will use the engine horsepower rating and “technology type” (e.g., Base, Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4A, Tier 4B, etc.) to select the applicable zero

- hour steady

- state emission factors from Table A2 of the Compression

- Ignition Document . For spar k

- ignition engines, Respondent will use the engine “technology type” (e.g., G2N1, G2N2, Gasoline, LPG, CNG

– Uncontrolled, Phase 1, Phase 2 , etc. ) to select the applicable zero

- hour steady

- state emission factors from th e relevant table (i.e., Tables 4

– 6) in the Spark

- Ignition Document. For each engine, Respondent will select the technology type using one of the following four options in the Company’s discretion.

- Option 1: When Respondent can determine the date of engine manufacture from the engine facep late, manufacturer’s information or other reliable evidence,

### 4 Respondent will select the emissions factors for the technology type corresponding to that date of manufacture.

- Option 2: When the date of manufacture is unavailable, Respondent may estimate tha t date using the date of generator purchase, when it can be reliably determined, and Respondent will conservatively select the emissions factors for the next oldest technology type

, provided Respondent can demonstrate that the engine was new when purchased

.

- Option 3: When the date of manufacture is unavailable, Respondent may estimate that date using the date of generator installation and conservatively select the emissions factors for the next oldest technology type, provided Respondent can (a) reliably d etermine the date of installation and (b) demonstrate that the engine was new when installed.

- Option 4: When Respondent cannot determine the year of manufacture and cannot reliably estimate it using Options 2 and 3 above, Respondent will evaluate complian ce using the emission factors for the oldest (i.e., “Base” or “Uncontrolled”) technology type, except for those compression

- ignition engines greater than 50 hp for which Respondent will use the Tier 0 emissions factors.

b) When initially using the nonroad mod el to evaluat e compliance with SIP limits, Respondent will select the most conservative relative deterioration factors for the oldest technology type (i.e., “Base” or “Uncontrolled”) in Table A4 of the Compression

- Ignition Document and Tables 1, 2, and 7 f rom the document entitled Non

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Deterioration Factors ( EPA 420

- R

- 05

- 023

-- December 2005) [hereinafter “Spark

- Ignition Deterioration Document”], as applicable ( s ee tables in Attachment E

- 3 )

. Respondent will then input the relative deterioration factors (i.e., the variable “A”) into E quation 4 on page 19 of the Compression

- Ignition Document , or Equation 2 on page 3 of the Spark

- Ignition Deterioration Document, as applicable, to derive the deterioration factors (i.e., “DF”) that Respondent will use to adjust the zero

- hour steady

- state emission factors for engine deterioration. If , as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.e , below, the initial deterioration

- adjusted emission estimates are not at least 5% below the applicable SIP limit

, Respondent may run the nonroad model again using the same equations to derive a deterioration

- adjusted emission estimate that accounts for the fraction of the engine’s useful life expended by assuming (a) the engine was run at the maximum number of hours per year allowed under applicable law, or when there is no such limit, (b) the engine was run at 500 hours per year as discussed in the Agency’s 1995 guidance entitled, Calculating Potential to Emit (PTE) for Emergency Generators (Sept. 6, 1995).

c) When i nitially using the nonroad model to evaluat e compression

- ignition engine compliance with PM SIP limits, if the applicab le fuel sulfur content limit allow s use of fuel with higher sulfur content than the applicable default assumption in the Compression

- Igni tion Document, Respondent will adjust its zero

- hour steady

- state emission factors upward to assume use of fuel containing the maximum sulfur content allowed under the applicable limit. Otherwise, Respondent will use the default assumption for sulfur conte nt to make an initial evaluation of compliance. If, as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.e, below, that initial evaluation generates an emission estimate that exceeds the SIP limit or is within 5% of that limit, Respondent

### 5 has the discretion to run the no nroad model again. When running the model again, Respondent may adjust the emission factors downward to account for applicable fuel content limits, including applicable fuel sulfur limits that are lower than the default assumption, provided the limits are (1) federally enforceable or legally and practicably enforceable by a state or local air pollution control agency and (2) consistent with the requirements of the state in which the emission units are located and (3) Respondent can demonstrate that is in compliance with applicable requirements

. In the final audit report, Respondent will identify those generators for which Respondent relied upon fuel content standards that are not federally

enforceable to demonstrate compliance with a SIP limit.

d) For compression

- ignition engines, if the applicable SIP limitations are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will convert those emissions factors from Table A2 of the Compression

- Ignition Document that are expressed in terms of engine outpu t into units of heat input using the average brake specific fuel consumption (“BSFC”) of 7,000 Btu/hp

- hr. Respondent also will assume a No. 2 diesel heating value of 19,300 Btu/lb to convert BSFC from Btu/hp

- hr to lb fuel/hp

- hr. For spark

- ignition engine s, if the applicable SIP limitations are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will use the conversion factors in the Spark

- Ignition Document to convert the emissions factors expressed in terms of engine output into units of heat input, as well as to convert fuel heating values.

e) After running the nonroad model, adjusting the zero

- hour steady

- state emission factors for deterioration and fuel content, as required, Respondent will compare (A) the estimated emissions from the engine(s) to (B) the applicable fede rally

enforceable SIP limitations. If the estimated emissions from the engine(s) are at least 5% below the applicable SIP limit, Respondent will assume that the generator is in compliance with that limit. If neither calculation of the nonroad model provides emission estimates that are below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%, Respondent may demonstrate compliance using the methods set out in Paragraph I.B.2.a.iv, below.

iii. To evaluate compliance with SO 2 SIP emission limitations, Respondent will us e Equation 7 in the Compression

- Ignition Document or the analogous equation on page 17 of the Spark

- Ignition Document, to derive an emission factor. Respondent will adjust for local fuel content limits in the manner described above in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii .c. Respondent will then compare (A) the estimated emissions from the engine(s) to (B) the applicable federally

- enforceable SIP limitation. If the estimated emissions from the engine(s) are at least 5% below the respective SIP limit, Respondent will assu me that the generator is in comp liance with that limit. If neither calculation of the nonroad model provides emission estimates that are below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%, Respondent may demonstrate compliance using the methods set out in Para graph I.B.2.a.iv, below

. a) For compression

- ignition engines, Respondent will use the applicable default value for the fraction of fuel sulfur converted to direct PM. I f the applicable SIP limitations are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will convert the e missions factors into units of heat input as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii. d, above.

b) For spark

- ignition engines, Respondent will use the applicable default value for the fraction of fuel sulfur converted to direct PM. I f the applicable SIP limitatio ns are expressed in lbs/MMBtu, Respondent will use the conversion factors in the Spark

-

### 6 Ignition Document to convert emissions factors and fuel heating values as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.ii.d

, above.

iv. If running the nonroad model pursuant to Paragrap hs I.B.2.a.ii

- iii above results in emission estimates for engine(s) that are not below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%, or if Respondent chooses not to begin its evaluation of compliance with SIP limits using the nonroad model, Respondent may use any or all of the following methods to demonstrate compliance: ( 1 ) choose to rely on manufacturer specifications or emissions data for the specific make and model of the engine(s), or ( 2 ) perform stack testing as described in Paragraph I.B.2.a.v, below

. Respondent may also choose to conclude that there is noncompliance with the limit. When Respondent uses the nonroad model to evaluate compliance, it will identify those generators in the final audit report for which the initial run of the model generates engine emission estimates that are not below the respective SIP limit by at least 5%

.

v. Respondent may elect stack testing to demonstrate compliance with federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations. In such an event, Respondent may use any of the followi ng methods to analyze emissions: (1) Testo Model 350 portable multigas emission analyzer, (2) EPA Methods 5 (excluding the condensable fraction of the results), 6C, 7E, and 10, or (3) any other analyzer or method that both EPA and Respondent have approve d

. If Respondent elects testing, Respondent may rely on the test results for a stack

- tested engine to estimate the emissions from a non

- stack

- tested engine of a similar make and model

, as defined in Attachment E

- 4 to this protocol. Respondent will disclose the test results in the final CAA audit report.

vi. In the event that there are applicable, federally

- enforceable SIP emission limitations for pollutants other than PM, NO x , and SO 2 that are not addressed in the Compression

Ignition or Spark

- Ignition Documents, Respondent will use reasonably available data or information and best engineering judgment to evaluate compliance with those limitations. If such pollutants are addressed in the Compression

- Ignition or Spark

- Ignition Documents, Respondent will use those documents to derive deterioration

- adjusted emission factors to evaluate generator compliance with the emission limits in a manner consistent with the methods set out in Paragra phs I.B.2.a.i

– i v of this protocol.

b

. Fuel Content. For fuel sulfur content requirements, Respondent will rely on fuel supplier specifications , receipts, or other documentation

.

c . NSPS Subparts IIII and JJJJ

. Respondent will evaluate compliance with NSPS Subpart IIII and JJJJ fuel requirements by reviewing receipts, specifications, or other documentation of what fuel the Company’s suppliers have provided. Respondent will evaluate compliance with NSPS Subpart IIII and JJ JJ emission limits by relying on the engine manufacturer’s certification regarding compliance with the applicable standard

, or to the extent stack testing is authorized under the Subparts, Respondent may elect stack testing to demonstrate compliance with t he emission limits

.
3. Monitoring, Reporting, and Records. For facilities that are subject to requirements to report, monitor or to create and/or maintain certain compliance records for their generators, including but not limited to keeping an engine run log, submitting an annual emissions inventory, or monitoring and/or keeping records pertaining to opacity requirements

, Respondent will review those records for 100% of those facilities whose permits impose such requirements. Respondent will pay the

### 7

n egotiated penalty and receive a release and covenant not to sue for those facilities found to have potential noncompliance.

For facilities that have generators that are subject to monitoring , reporting, and/or recordkeeping requirements that are not contai ned in permits, including but not limited to keeping an engine run log, submitting an annual emissions inventory, or monitoring and/or keeping records pertaining to opacity requirements

, Respondent will have the option to either (a) review the records for all such facilities or (b) review the records for a random sample of those facilities and then extrapolate the fail rate to the rest of such facilities, as further outlined below.

If Respondent chooses to review the reporting, monitoring and/or record kee ping for a random sample of those facilities, it will supplement the records review with an additional spot

- check confirmation process that will require physical visits to 20% of the sample to check the accuracy of information and records sent to the audit ors. The locations visited would be representative of the various facility types (e.g., cell towers) in the sample. Respondent will pay the negotiated penalty and receive a release and covenant not to sue for those facilities in the sample that are found to have potential noncompliance and are identified to EPA. Attachment E

- 5 to this protocol explains how the sampling and extrapolation would be done.

Respondent will extrapolate the “ fail” rat e of the sampled facilities to estimate the number of violations at the remaining facilities at issue for which th e monitoring and/or recordkeeping requirement is not contained in a permit . Respondent will identify the remaining facilities at issue in an attachment to the final audit report. Respondent will pay the negotiated penalty based on the estimated number of violations and receive a release and covenant not to sue for all facilities identified in that attachment.

To the extent corrective action is required at those facilities whose compliance status is based on an extrapolation from the rate of noncompliance of those facilities that are sampled

, such as if Respondent’s samp ling indicates that a percentage of facilities are not reporting, monitoring or maintaining required records in compliance with applicable federally

- enforceable requirements, Respondent shall implement changes to its compliance management system that are p rospective and company

- wide. Those changes shall be designed to ensure that each facility complies with the federally

- enforceable monitoring and recordkeeping requirements applicable to it.

C. Audit Schedule.

1. Audit Period

. Respondent will complete the Clean Air Act audit within eighteen month s, unless Respondent elects stack testing to demonstrate compliance and cannot complete the audit in that timeframe because of circumstances related to the testing that are beyond the Company’s co ntrol (e.g., delays in obtaining a regulator’s permission or the availability of a person technically qualified to conduct testing). The audit period will begin on the first day of the month immediately following the month during which the Environmental A ppeals Board (EAB) signs the final order approving the consent agreement for this matter.

If Respondent elects stack testing and cannot complete the audit within the eighteen

- month audit period because of circumstances beyond its control related to such testing, Respondent will provide written notice to EPA as soon as Respondent determines that it cannot meet the deadline. Respondent will propose a work plan identifying the number of generators that remain to be tested, a schedule for completing the test ing, and a new deadline to complete the audit. Such deadline extension shall b e subject to approval by EPA, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned.

### 8

2. Reporting

. Respondent will submit a mid

- term status report on the Clean Air Ac t audit. Respondent will submit the report by no later than thirty calendar days after the end of the first nine months of the audit period. Respondent also will provide EPA with a final Clean Air Act audit report by no later than ninety (90) calendar days after the end of the audit period . The final audit report will include an update of the Attachment E

- 1 inv entory. Any violations reported in the final audit report will contain the following information

. Facility address (street, city, state, zip code), Nature of potential violation(s) (e.g., failure to apply for permit install and/or operate, failure to provide notice and/or maintain operating records

, etc. ) and negotiated penalty

, Duration of noncompliance (either presumed or determined), State regulation violated, and support for federal enforceability (e.g., date EPA approved regulation as part of SIP , date published in Federal Register, Federal Register citation ), Description of source(s) (e.g., size of generator, type of fuel used),
Da te Respondent d etermined possible noncompliance Date facility returned to compliance, and
A ctions taken to return to compliance (e.g., submission of permit application/exemption request or notice to appropriate regulatory agency)

3. Corrective Action. The implementation of any corrective action is not a part of this audit protocol. The terms of the consent agreement and final order (“CAFO”) for this matter will separately establish timelines for the implementation of corrective actions.

4. Force Majeur e. The terms of the Force Majeure Clause in Section VIII of the CAFO will apply to all obligations set out in this Clean Air Act audit protocol.

II. Clean Water Act Section 311(j)(1)(C)

A. SPCC Audit Coverage.

This audit will cover applicable Spill Pre vention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (“SPCC”) requirements contained in Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(1)(C), and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 112.1

- .8. The audit will evaluate whether each of the 41 L egacy

- AWS facilities listed in Attachment E

- 2 is i n compliance on the date of its evaluation with the requirements outlined below , provided that Respondent own ed or operate d the facility on June 1, 2009. Respondent made a good faith effort, using rea sonably available information collected during a 2007 data validation exercise, to identify the listed facilities. The proposed audit will involve physical visits to all of the facilities listed in Attachment E

- 2
, provided Respondent continued to own or operate them on June 1, 2009, to evaluate the following:

1. Is the facility currently in compliance with the obligation to develop a SPCC plan?

2. For those facilities that currently have a plan:

a. Do the content and requirements of the plan comply with the regulations?

### 9

b. Are the structures and equipment at the facility in compliance with what the plan and the regulations require?

c. Is the plan kept up to date and the supporting documentation maintained, and is this documentation available on

- site, where required ?

d. Are the facility and equipment regularly inspected and tested, are the employees receiving training, and are records of such inspections, testing, and training maintained, when required by the plan and 40 C.F.R. § 112.7 (e)

– (f)?

B. Audit Schedule.

1. Audit Period

. Respondent will have six months to complete this SPCC audit. The six

- month audit period will begin on the first day of the month immediately following the month during which the EAB signs the final order approving the consent agreement for this matter.

2. Reporting

. Respondent will provide EPA with a final SPCC audit report by no later than forty

five ( 45 ) calendar days after the end of the audit period that will include an update of the Attachment E

- 2 inventory

. Any violation s reported in the final audit report will contain the following information

. Facility address (street, city, state, zip code), Nature of potential violation(s) (e.g., failure to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, no secondary containment, no inspections and/or recordkeeping

, etc. ), Duration of noncompliance (either presumed or determined), Capacity of tank(s), Storage contents,
Date Respondent determined possible noncompliance, Date facility returned to compliance, and
Actions taken to return to compliance (e.g., development of an SPCC plan, and specific steps for implementation).

3. Corrective Action. The implementation of any corrective action is not a part of this audit protocol. The terms of the CAFO will separately establish timelines for the implementation of corrective actions.

4. Force Majeure. The terms of the Force Majeure Clause in Section VIII of the CAFO apply to all obligations set out in this SPCC audit protocol.