Additional Information:

Volume II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program, Adopted 

February 22, 2013

 Revised Sections:

o III.B.4 Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Program, 

o III.B.10 Air Quality Conformity Procedures

 New Section:

o III.B.12 Limited Maintenance Plan for 2014-2024

Volume II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section III.C Fairbanks Transportation Control Program, Adopted 

February 22, 2013

 Revised Sections:

o III.C.3 Air Quality Emissions Data 

o III.C.4 Carbon Monoxide Network Monitoring Program

o III.C.6 Modeling and Projections

o III.C.10 Air Quality Conformity Procedures

 New Section:

o III.C.12 Limited Maintenance Plan for 2014-2024

Volume III, Appendices to Volume II is amended as follows:

Volume II, Section II. Air Quality Control Program is amended as 

follows:

18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through January 4, 

2013, is removed and replaced with 18 AAC 50 Air Quality 

Control as amended through May 8, 2013; section to be reviewed 

and approved is the lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.030 with the 

adoption date of Volumes II and III of the State Air quality 

Control Plan as amended through February 22, 2013.

Volume II, Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program

Appendix III.B.1 is amended by adding the following document:
Addition of Anchorage Assembly Resolution No. 2013-20, 

dated January 29, 2013, a resolution of the Municipality of 

Anchorage adopting revisions to the Anchorage Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan (dated January 29, 2013)

Appendix III.B.10 is amended by adding the following document:

ADEC Affidavit of Oral Hearing

Volume II, Section III.C Fairbanks Transportation Control Program

Appendix III.C.1 is amended by adding the following document:

Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Resolution No. 

2013-05, dated January 10, 2013, a resolution of the 

Fairbanks North Star Borough adopting revisions to the 

Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (dated 

January 10, 2013)

Appendix III.C.10 is amended by adding the following document:

ADEC Affidavit of Oral Hearing
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to:

State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section III.B: Anchorage Transportation Control Program

Adopted

February 22, 2013

Sean Parnell, Governor 

Larry Hartig, Commissioner
Adopted February 22, 2013

(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted February 22, 2013

Anchorage 

CO Limited Maintenance Plan

A plan addressing the second 10 years of the 2004 -2024 CO 

maintenance planning period

Vol. II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions

Section III.B: Anchorage Transportation Control Program

Prepared by the 

Municipality of Anchorage

Department of Health and Human Services

for submission to the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

for inclusion in the 

State Implementation Plan for Air Quality 
Adopted February 22, 2013

(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted February 22, 2013

A note for reviewers of this document.

This document is organized and formatted to be consistent with the State of Alaska Air 

Quality Control Plan or SIP. It constitutes a proposed amendment to the Anchorage 

CO Maintenance Plan which was approved by the Anchorage Assembly in May 2011. 

That Plan comprised eleven sections (Sections III.B.1 – B.11) of the SIP. 

This proposed amendment adds a new Section III.B.12, entitled Limited Maintenance 

Plan for 2014-2024 and revises Section III.B.10, which addresses air quality conformity 

procedures for CO. Minor changes were also made to Section III.B.4 that provide 

flexibility in number and location of CO monitoring sites that must be operated in 

Anchorage. Other sections of the Plan remain unchanged and are not shown in this 

document.

On December 20, 2012, after completion of a public comment period and review by the 

AMATS Air Quality and Technical Advisory Committees, the AMATS Policy 

Committee recommended that the Anchorage Assembly adopt this amendment to the 

CO Maintenance Plan.
Adopted February 22, 2013

(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.4 - 1

Introductory Note: In this document each reference to “CAAA” means the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-549. 

Minor revisions to this section clarify that CO monitoring will be conducted in conformance 

with federal regulation and provide flexibility to make changes in the CO monitoring 

network, subject to approval by the EPA Administrator.

III.B.4. Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Program

Although emission projections are used to track reasonable further progress (RFP), it is 

actual ambient air quality monitoring data that determine whether or not an area meets the 

NAAQS. The difficulty with using ambient monitoring data to assess trends is the 

fluctuation in pollution concentrations caused by daily, weekly, and yearly variations in 

meteorological conditions, traffic levels, and other factors. However, it is important to 

monitor and compare ambient air quality concentrations to modeled emission projections to 

determine if the projections are reasonable and credible. Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAAA 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(a) (2) (b)) requires that each implementation plan submitted to EPA 

provide for the establishment and operation of "appropriate devices, methods, systems, and 

procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality."

The Anchorage CO monitoring network is currently comprised of four sampling stations. 

The MOA uses TECO48 CO analyzers at each station (Figure III.B.4-1). These instruments 

meet all specifications required by the EPA for ambient CO monitoring and are designated 

by the EPA as a "reference method" for CO. 

Figure III.B.4-1

TECO 48 CO Analyzer with Strip Chart Recorder 

and Data Acquisition System 

The monitoring network is operated 24 hours a day from October 1 through March 31. 

Hourly averages of CO levels are provided from each station in the network. These data are 

uploaded to a central computer every weekday. Data are submitted to EPA on a quarterly 

basis for inclusion in the nationwide air quality database known as AQS. CO monitoring is 

conducted in conformance with guidelines established in federal regulations, EPA guidance 
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.4 - 2

and instrument manufacturer recommendations. Third party instrument performance audits 

are conducted by EPA and/or ADEC quarterly.

The locations and the status (as of October 2012) of the stations in the CO monitoring 

network are described in Table III.B.4-1. The purpose of this network is to characterize the 

range of CO exposures experienced by Anchorage residents. By analyzing pollution 

concentration trends over time, CO monitoring stations can also serve to assess the 

effectiveness of strategies designed to reduce air pollution emissions and improve air 

quality. Each monitoring station was selected in accordance with guidelines established by 

the EPA. As more has been learned about the nature of the CO problem in Anchorage, more 

emphasis has been placed on monitoring CO levels in neighborhoods. 

Table III.B.4-1

Description of Anchorage CO Monitoring Sites

Location Site Description

Turnagain

(active)

Monitoring began at this neighborhood-scale site in October 1998 CO concentrations 

measured here were the highest of the twenty sites monitored during a saturation 

monitoring study conducted in the winter of 1997-98. It now exhibits the highest 

concentrations of the current network. It exceeded the NAAQS once in 1999 and 2001.

Garden

(active)

Monitoring began at this residential neighborhood location at 16th and Garden Street in 

1979. In the early 2000’s, Garden typically recorded higher peak concentrations than the 

micro-scale sites at Seward Highway and at Benson. 

Parkgate

(active)

Monitoring began at this middle-scale site in Eagle River (approx 10 miles north of 

Anchorage) in December 2005. Thus far, concentrations appear to be low relative to other 

active sites (i.e., Turnagain, Garden) in the network. 

8th and L Street 

(active)

Monitoring began at this middle-scale site in downtown Anchorage in October 2007. Thus 

far, concentrations appear to be low relative to other active sites in the network. 

7th & C Street

(discontinued)

This station was located mid-block between 6th and 7th Avenue on C Street. Monitoring 

began here in 1973 and was discontinued in 1995. The last exceedance at this site was 

recorded in 1990.

Benson

(discontinued)

Monitoring began at this micro-scale site on the southwest corner of Spenard Road and 

Benson Blvd in 1978. This site frequently recorded exceedances of the NAAQS in the late 

1970’s, 1980’s and early 1990’s. The last exceedance was measured here in 1996. Benson 

was decommissioned in December 2001 when it became evident that the Seward Highway 

site exhibited higher concentrations. 

Sand Lake

(discontinued)

Monitoring began at this neighborhood-scale site in 1980 and was discontinued in March

1998. This station was located on Raspberry Road approximately 0.3 miles east of Jewel 

Lake Road in west Anchorage. The last exceedance was recorded here in 1989.

Seward 

Highway

(discontinued)

Monitoring began at this micro-scale site, located on the southwest corner of the 

intersection of Benson Blvd. and Seward Highway, in October of 1987. In the late 80’s 

and early 90’s this site frequently measured exceedances of the NAAQS. However, no 

exceedances were measured after calendar year 1996. This station was decommissioned in 

December 2004 when it became clear that future exceedances at this site were unlikely and 

the highest CO concentrations were occurring in residential areas.

Jewel Lake

(discontinued)

Monitoring began here at this neighborhood-scale site in west Anchorage in October 2002 

and was discontinued in March 2004 because CO concentrations were lower than the other 

three sites in the network. 

Bowman

(discontinued)

Monitoring at this neighborhood-scale site in south Anchorage was conducted between 

January 2006 and March 2007. Monitoring was terminated when it became apparent that 

CO concentrations were very low at this site.
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.4 - 3

The locations of the monitoring sites are shown on the maintenance area boundary map 

(Figure III.B.2-1) in Section III.B.2. 

Continued Monitoring

The Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(B)) requires implementation 

plans to provide for the “establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air 

quality....” The MOA is committed to the continued CO monitoring as required by Title III, 

Section 319 of the Clean Air Act and the EPA Administrator and will operate monitoring 

sites in compliance with EPA monitoring guidelines set out in 40 CFR Part 58 “Ambient Air 

Quality Surveillance” and Appendices A through G of Part 58. Three saturation monitoring 

studies have been conducted by the MOA to assess the adequacy of the monitoring network. 

The 1997-98 saturation study resulted in the establishment of the Turnagain Station in west 

Anchorage. Any changes to the monitoring network are discussed in advance with the 

ADEC and EPA Region 10. The EPA Administrator has final authority on the placement of 

monitoring sites.
Adopted February 22, 2013

(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.10 - 1

As part of this LMP, Section III.B.10 below is re-titled and will replace the previously 

adopted section entitled “Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget.”

III.B.10 Air Quality Conformity Procedures

Note: This section of the maintenance plan was revised in June 2012 as part of the 

preparation of a limited maintenance plan for CO. At the same time Section III.B.10 was 

revised, a new section (Section III.B.12) was added. Together Section III.B.10 and Section 

III.B.12 constitute the Anchorage CO Limited Maintenance Plan.

Regional Conformity Determination Methodology

Before any regional transportation plan can be adopted or amended, the metropolitan 

planning organization is required to make an affirmative determination that it meets 

conformity requirements outlined in 40 CFR 93. Although EPA policy does not exempt CO 

LMP areas from the need to demonstrate conformity, it allows the area to do so without 

completing a regional emissions analysis. EPA guidance states that “emissions budgets in 

limited maintenance plan areas may be treated as essentially not constraining.” *

When a regional conformity determination is made for a transportation plan or improvement 

program it should state that a regional emission analysis is not required because the area has 

an approved LMP for CO. The Plan and the TIP must still be made available for public 

review. The interagency consultation requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.112 and under 

state regulation, 18 AAC 50 .715 and 50.720 still apply. To meet requirements outlined in 

40 CFR 93.113, the conformity determination must also address whether the transportation 

control measures in the SIP are being implemented in a timely manner. 

The EPA 

has concluded that for transportation purposes, the emissions in a qualifying LMP area need 

not be capped for the maintenance period and thus no emissions budget is required in the 

maintenance plan. A regional emissions analysis and associated regional conformity 

requirements (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119) are no longer applicable. Similarly, federal 

actions subject to the general conformity rule would automatically satisfy the “budget test”

specified in Section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons.

Project-Level Conformity Methodology

CO LMP areas are not exempt from project-level or “hot spot” analysis requirements 

outlined in 40 CFR93.116 & 123. A project-level hot-spot analysis consists of performing 

dispersion modeling to determine whether a project will cause or contribute to any new 

violations of ambient standards or increase the frequency or severity of existing violations. 

This hot-spot modeling requirement applies to certain types of projects in all non-attainment 

and maintenance areas. Thus, in Anchorage, hot-spot CO modeling must be performed in 

project-level conformity determinations for these types of projects (spelled out in 40 CFR 

93.123(a)). 

 

* Memorandum “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,”

Joseph W. Paisie, EPA, Oct 6, 1995
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.10 - 2

The EPA has released guidance on how the MOVES model should be used to prepare 

project level conformity analyses.16† Inputs to the hot-spot modeling include link-specific 

vehicle emission factors for roadway segments in the project vicinity. For project-level 

analyses, these emission factors will be developed in one of two ways, depending on the 

type of project. Through the interagency consultation process, a project will be put into one 

of two tracks as follows:

1. Projects that do not significantly impact off-network emissions (e.g., projects that are 

not likely to affect the amount of initial idling and/or engine block heater use in the 

project area) will follow a more routine approach to computing emission impacts using 

MOVES. Off-network emissions will not be directly modeled in the analyses of these 

projects, as they do not change as a result of the project. For these types of projects, offnetwork emissions are accounted for in the background concentration input in 

CAL3QHC. The interagency consultation team should determine the appropriate CO 

background concentration used to model the project.‡ 

2. Those projects that do significantly impact off-network emissions (e.g., construction of 

facilities like parking lots that add substantially to start emissions in the project area, or 

projects that are likely to affect the amount of initial idling and/or engine block heater 

use in the area) will follow a process that incorporates off-network emissions, roadway 

link emissions and background concentration. The EPA MOVES guidance for project 

level analyses describes how off network emissions should be modeled. The interagency 

consultation team should review and approve the assumptions that are used in this 

modeling. The consultation team should also evaluate and determine the appropriate 

dispersion model used to model the ambient CO impacts expected from these off 

network emissions.

The interagency consultation process will be the key means of ensuring that projects are 

placed in the correct track for calculation of emission impacts. The interagency consultation 

process will also be important in ensuring that appropriate analyses of project emission 

impacts are conducted under the two scenarios listed above. Moreover, it is important that 

the interagency process be used to develop guidance so that consistent methodologies are 

utilized in project-level analyses. Hot spot modeling is often required in project-level 

conformity determinations. When possible, the interagency consultation process should be 

used to develop written guidance regarding modeling inputs and assumptions and these 

assumptions should be consistent with those employed in the maintenance demonstration in 

 

† This endnote was already included in the references section of the original Anchorage CO SIP adopted by the 

State of Alaska in September 2011. This footnote references an EPA document entitled: “Using MOVES in 

Project Level Carbon Monoxide Analyses”, EPA-420-B-10-041, December 2010.

‡ Typically, background CO is estimated from background or neighborhood-scale monitors in the vicinity. 

However, in Anchorage, CO concentrations monitored in some residential areas are substantially higher than 

those near major roadways. For example, a CO monitoring study conducted in 1997-98 showed that CO 

concentrations measured at the Turnagain and Garden sites, which are located on relatively low volume 

residential streets, were 20% to 50% higher than concentrations measured near major roadway intersections 

such as the Seward Highway & Benson Boulevard, Old Seward Highway & Dimond Boulelvard, or Lake Otis

Boulevard & Tudor Road. CO concentrations along these major arterials were lower even though their traffic 

volumes were an order of magnitude higher than the neighborhood sites. Evidence suggests that mechanical 

turbulence from traffic effectively increases the mixing volume at intersection sites and reduces overall CO 

concentrations. Mechanical turbulence would have a similar effect in reducing the background CO 

concentration in the vicinity of projects with appreciable traffic. This should be considered by the interagency 

consultation team when determining an appropriate background concentration.
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.10 - 3

this Plan. As always, conformity determinations will be subject to the applicable public 

review requirements. This provides the public an opportunity to comment on the approach 

that is taken for the conformity determination for each plan, program, and project.

General Conformity

For projects requiring general conformity determinations, it is also important to consider the 

impacts of off-network motor vehicle emissions (e.g., idle emissions). Interagency 

consultation shall be used to determine whether off-network mobile source emissions are 

significant and what analysis of these emissions is appropriate for determining general 

conformity. An example of a project of this type is an airport expansion.
(This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.12 - 1

SECTION III.B ANCHORAGE CARBON MONOXIDE CONTROL PROGRAM

III.B.12. Limited Maintenance Plan for 2014-2024

Note: This is a new section added to the CO Maintenance Plan. Section III.B.10, which 

addresses CO conformity, was revised and submitted at the same time to reflect the 

simplified conformity process required for limited maintenance areas. Minor revisions were 

also made to Section III.B.4 that provide additional flexibility in the operation of the 

Anchorage CO monitoring network.

Background

When the EPA first approved the Anchorage CO Maintenance Plan, effective July 23, 2004, 

it initiated a 20-year maintenance planning period as defined in the CAA. The CAA 

requires the submission of a second maintenance plan eight years after the redesignation that 

covers the second ten years of the maintenance planning period. Thus, an updated “second 

10-year maintenance plan” for Anchorage is required for the period July 23, 2014 through 

July 22, 2024. 

The EPA provides areas with design values less than 7.65 ppm the option of preparing their 

second 10-year maintenance plan using the limited maintenance plan (LMP) procedure. The 

basic elements of the LMP procedure for CO are described in a guidance memorandum, 

referred to as the Paise memo.§

The Paise memo identifies five core provisions that should be included in the LMP. These 

are: (1) an attainment inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration, (3) monitoring to verify 

continued attainment of the CO NAAQS; (4) a contingency plan; and (5) conformity 

determination requirements under an LMP. These are discussed in more detail below.

 Anchorage has decided to use the LMP option for this 

second 10-year maintenance plan update. 

Discussion of Core LMP Provisions 

1. Attainment Inventory

The Paise memo states that “the State should develop an attainment emissions inventory to 

identify the level of emission in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS.” A 

comprehensive inventory was prepared for base year 2007 that showed that motor vehicle 

emissions were responsible for approximately 79% of all CO emissions in the Anchorage 

bowl inventory area. The emission inventory was prepared for a “CO design day” when CO 

concentrations are the highest. In Anchorage, the highest CO concentrations tend to occur on 

mid-winter weekdays when temperatures are near zero. The assumptions and computations 

involved in producing this inventory are described in detail in Section III.B.3 and its 

appendix. 

Results of 2007 emission inventory are re-summarized in Table III.B.12-1.

Table III.B.12-1

Sources of Anchorage CO Emissions in 2007 Base Year

 

§ Memorandum “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas,”

Joseph W. Paisie, EPA, Oct 6, 1995
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.12 - 2

Source Category

CO Emitted

(tons per day) % of total

Motor vehicle – running emissions 40.5 25.4%

Motor vehicle – start emissions 84.8 53.4%

Motor vehicle – extended idling by 

combination long-haul trucks 0.3 0.1%

Subtotal – Motor Vehicles 125.6 78.9%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

Operations 12.4 7.8%

Merrill Field Airport Operations 0.7 0.4%

Wood burning – fireplaces and wood stoves 6.2 3.9%

Space heating – natural gas 3.8 2.4%

Miscellaneous (railroad, marine,

snowmobiles, snow removal, portable 

electrical generators, welding, etc.) 9.3 5.8%

Point sources (power generation, sewage 

sludge incineration) 1.3 0.8%

Subtotal – Other Sources 33.7 21.1%

TOTAL – ALL SOURCES 159.3 100%

2. Maintenance Demonstration

According to the Paise memo, the maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to 

be satisfied “if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality criteria for 

limited maintenance areas.” Areas with design values of 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO 

NAAQS) or less qualify for the LMP option.**

Unlike previous CO attainment and maintenance plans prepared for Anchorage, when an 

LMP is prepared there is no requirement to forecast CO emissions or concentrations to 

demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. When EPA approves an LMP, it concludes that 

it is unreasonable to expect that emission growth during the maintenance period would result 

in a violation of the NAAQS.

Table III.B.12.2 shows that design value as defined in the Paise memo (DVPaise) has

consistently met the 7.65 ppm criteria since 2006. The DVPaise in base year 2007 was 6.1 

 

** It should be noted that the Paise memo definition of design value is different than the design value defined 

earlier in Section III.B.6. In Section III.B.6 the design value is the upper-bound 90th percentile prediction 

interval value for 2007 computed from second 8-hour maximum values measured at the Turnagain CO monitor 

between 1999 and 2008. The design value as defined in the Paise memo, is determined by examining the 

second maximum 8-hour concentration recorded each year at each monitoring site in the area over a two-year 

period. For each site, the higher of the two values is the design value for that site for that two-year period. To 

determine the design value for an area for that two-year period, all monitors in the area are reviewed and the 

highest design value among the individual sites is the design value for the area as a whole. Because the Paise 

definition of the design value is different than the design value referred to in Section III.B.6, it is referred to as 

DVPaise in this section.
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.12 - 3

ppm. In 2011, the value was 6.0 ppm. The Turnagain monitor has consistently measured 

the highest CO concentrations in the network and thus been the controlling site in the 

determination of the design value.

III.B.12.2

Computed Design Values (DVPaise) in Anchorage 2002 - 2011

Highest 2nd Max 8-hr Concentration 

Measured in Preceding Two-Years

Garden DVPaise

Seward

Hwy Turnagain DHHS

2002 5.7 5.2 7.7 7.7

2003 5.7 5.4 6.7 6.7

2004 6.4 5.5 7.9 7.9

2005 6.4 7.9 7.9

2006 4.8 6.1 6.1

2007 4.3 6.1 6.1

2008 3.8 5.5 3.1 5.5

2009 4.4 5.8 3.6 5.8

2010 4.4 6.1 3.6 6.1

2011 3.8 6.1 2.8 6.1

The Paise memo also notes, that as part of the maintenance demonstration, any control 

measures in the SIP must be continued. Current CO control measures for Anchorage are 

described in Section III.B.5. These primary control measures include: (1) an air quality 

public awareness program aimed at promoting use of engine block heaters to reduce CO 

cold start emissions and the promotion of bicycling walking, transit and other alternatives to 

the single occupancy vehicle; (2) a transit marketing program; and (3) carpooling and 

vanpooling. 

3. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

The Paise memo states that the LMP should provide for continued operation of a CO 

monitoring network consistent with requirements outlined in 40 CFR 58. Anchorage is 

committed to maintaining a CO monitoring network to verify continued attainment of the 

NAAQS. Additionally, because the Turnagain monitor consistently measures the highest 

CO concentrations in the network, the Municipality of Anchorage supports ongoing 

continuation of a monitoring site in the Turnagain neighborhood.†† The specifics of the CO

monitoring network are discussed in Section III.B.4. Commitments to continue monitoring 

as described in that section remain in force with this LMP.

4. Contingency Plan

The Paise memo notes that Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan 

include contingency provisions. Section III.B.7 of this Plan provides a menu of six possible 

contingency measures that could be implemented if Anchorage failed to attain the CO 

 

†† The MOA recognizes the importance of assessing CO concentrations in high impact neighborhoods and 

intends to continue monitoring at the Turnagain site. However, the MOA cannot provide an on-going

commitment to monitoring at any particular site because of the possibility of unforeseen logistical and/or 

budgetary constraints.
Adopted February 22, 2013

III.B.12 - 4

NAAQS. These include: (1) increasing public awareness and education, transit, carpool and 

vanpool promotion efforts; (2) curtailing or limiting the use of fireplaces and woodstoves 

and other wood burning appliances when high CO is predicted; (3) promoting an increase in 

transit ridership among commuters by offering reduced fares or free transit for employees of 

companies that contribute to the subsidy; (4) reinstating the engine block heater installation 

subsidy; (5) reinstating the ethanol-blended gasoline requirement; and (6) reinstating the I/M 

program. 

The contingency provisions discussed in Section III.B.7 remain unchanged. This LMP does 

not alter the commitments or the timelines for implementing contingency measures 

described in that section. 

5. Conformity Determinations under LMPs

When the LMP is approved or found adequate by the EPA, a regional emissions analysis

will no longer required as part of the regional transportation conformity determination 

process that must accompany the adoption of all metropolitan transportation plans and 

improvement programs adopted by AMATS. The conformity requirements and procedures 

that will be employed by AMATS after this LMP has been approved or found adequate by 

the EPA are discussed in Section III.B.10. This section was revised as part of the 

preparation of the LMP. Prior to revision, this section set forth a CO emission budget for 

use in the conformity determination process. As noted earlier, a regional emissions analysis

is not required in limited maintenance areas, so a CO emissions budget is no longer needed. 

Section III.B.10, as revised, describes the simplified conformity process that will be utilized 

when this LMP is approved or found adequate for conformity purposes by the EPA.

Planning Process used to Develop the Anchorage CO LMP‡‡

The local planning process used to develop air quality plans in Anchorage is described in 

detail in Section III.B.1. This same process was used to develop this LMP. The first draft 

of this LMP was prepared in June 2012. A public review draft was released for 30-day 

public review by the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee on September 13, 2012. The 

AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee met on October 2, 2012 to review the public 

review draft. Although they did not assemble a quorum, they forwarded their informal 

endorsement of the LMP, as drafted, to the AMATS Technical and Policy Committees. The 

AMATS Policy Committee recommended that the Anchorage Assembly adopt the LMP on 

December 20, 2012. The Assembly adopted the LMP and associated amendments to 

Section III.B.4 and III.B.10 on January 29, 2013.

ADEC held a public hearing on the LMP on February 12, 2013. After review and 

consideration of the comments received, the LMP was forwarded to the EPA.

 

‡‡ This section will be completed when the public review and approval process is completed. The narrative in 

this paragraph will likely be revised. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Amendments to:

State Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. III: Appendices

Appendices to: 

Volume II, Section II. Air Quality Control Program;

Volume II, Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program; and 

Volume II, Section III.C Fairbanks Transportation Control Program.

Adopted

February 22, 2013
Adopted February 22, 2013

The State of Alaska’s State Air Quality Control Plan Volume III, Appendix to Volume II of this 

plan, is amended to include the following documents:

Volume II, Section II. Air Quality Control Program is amended by removing the following 

regulations:

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through January 4, 2013;

and replacing them with the following regulations currently under public review:

• 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control as amended through {effective date of the regulations}. 

Volume II, Section III.B Anchorage Transportation Control Program adopted into the State Air 

Quality Control Plan, adopted as of February 22, 2013, is amended as follows:

• Appendix III.B.1 is amended by adding the following documents:

· Anchorage Assembly Resolution No. 2013-20, dated January 29, 2013, a resolution 

of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting revisions to the Anchorage Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan (dated January 29, 2013).

• Appendix III.B.10 is amended by adding the following document:

· Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s Affidavit of Oral Hearing.

Volume II, Section III.C Fairbanks Transportation Control Program adopted into the State Air 

Quality Control Plan adopted as of February 22, 2013, is amended as follows:

• Appendix III.C.1 is amended by adding the following documents:

· Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly Resolution No. 2013-05, dated January 10, 

2013, a resolution of the Fairbanks North Star Borough adopting revisions to the 

Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (dated January 10, 2013).

• Appendix III.C.10 is amended by adding the following document:

· Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s Affidavit of Oral Hearing.