1 

### SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON PROPOSED

CHANGES TO

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM ENTAL CONSERVATION REGULATIONS

The Alaska Department of Environmental Cons ervation (ADEC) proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 18 of the Alaska Administrativ e Code (AAC) Chapter 52 Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor Vehicles, and Chapter 50 Air Quality Control.. The proposed changes to 18 AAC 52.005 would increa se the time period during which a new model year vehicle is exempt from a vehicle emissions test and exempt vehicles with historic vehicle plates and custom collector plates from having to participate in the ve hicle emissions testing program. The proposed changes to 18 AAC 52.06 0 update the federal reference for poverty guidelines for use in economic hardship waiv ers. The proposed changes to 18 AAC 52.990 add definitions of categories for exempt vehicles incl uding “historic exhibition use,” “historic vehicle plate” and “custom collector plate”.

ADEC is proposing to amend the State Air Quality Control Plan, which is adopted by reference

in 18 AAC 50.030, as follows:

• update Volume II, Section II: Air Qualit y Control Program, and update Volume II,

Section III.A: Statewide Carbon Monoxide Control Program to incorporate the

revisions to 18 AAC 52;

• revise and update Volume II, Section III. B: Anchorage Transportation Control
Program to:

o update the Anchorage vehicle inspec tion and maintenance (I/M) program
consistent with the changes to 18 AAC 52 and local ordinances;

o update the carbon monoxide (CO) continge ncy control measures that could be
implemented if Anchorage exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for CO in the future;

o demonstrate that the changes to the Anchorage I/M program do not impact
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO.

• update Volume III, the Appendices to Volu me II to include the revised 18 AAC 52
regulations, the revised Anchorage emissi on inventory and projections, Anchorage’s
technical analysis for complying with th e NAAQS for CO, and the Municipality of
Anchorage’s most recent I/M ordinances and code.

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to private persons of complying and alterna tive practical methods of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to Scott Sloa ne, Division of Air Quality, ADEC, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303, P.O. Box 111800, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800, or by facsimile at: (907) 465-5129. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on July 15 th 

### , 2009. Comments

received after this date will not be c onsidered in final action on these rules.2 

### The Department will hold a public hearing on this proposal on Monday, July 13 th 

### , 2009 from 12:30-1:30 pm, at the ADEC Bayview Office Bu ilding, Conference Room A, 619 Ship Creek Drive, Anchorage, Alaska. Oral or written comment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing will be extended if nece ssary to accommodate those presen t before 1:30 pm who did not have an opportunity to comment. If you will not be able to attend the public hearing in person, please contact Cindy Heil at (907) 269-7579 by July 10 th 

### , 2009 to make arrangements to participate by phone. The State of Alaska, Depa rtment of Environmental Conservation complies

with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you are a person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to participate in this public process, please contact Deborah Pock at (907) 269-0291 or TDD Relay Service 1-800-770-8973/TTY or dial 711 within 30 days of publication of this noti ce to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided.

For a copy of the proposed regulation changes a nd the Anchorage CO Maintenance Plan please refer to this ADEC webpage http://www.dec.state.a k.us/air/ap/calendar.htm , or contact Scott Sloane by telephone at (907) 465-5176, or by e-mail at scott.sloane@alaska.gov

.

This is a SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE adding to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD that was issued on June 8, 2009 con cerning these proposed regulation revisions contained in the Department of Law f ile number 993-08-0144. This SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE is being issued to incorporate the list of specific citations addressed in the proposed regulation changes.

After the public comment period ends on July 15 th 

### , 2009, ADEC will either adopt these or other provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, or decide to take no action on them. The language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. You should comment during the time allo wed if your interests could be affected. Written comments received are public records and are subject to public inspection.

Statutory Authority: AS 46.03.010, AS 46.03.020, AS 46.14.030, AS 46.14.510

Statutes Being Implemented, Interpreted, or Made Specific: AS 46.03.010, AS 46.03.020, AS 46.14.030, AS 46.14.510

Fiscal Information: The proposed regulation cha nges are not expected to require an increased appropriation.

Dated: June 12 th 

### , 2009

Larry Hartig, Commissioner3 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS NOTICE INFORMATION (AS 44.62.190(d))

1. Adopting agency: Alaska Department of Environmental Conser vation. 2. General subject of regulation: Emissions In spection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor Vehicles, and Air Quality Control. 3. Citation of regulation: 18 AAC 52 and 18 AAC 50. 4. Reason for the proposed action: Update 18 AAC 52. 005 with changes related to exemptions for new motor vehicles, vehicles with historic or custom collector plates. Update 18 AAC 52.060 with the federal reference for poverty guidelines for use in ec onomic hardship waivers. Update 18 AAC 52.990 with definitions. Update 18 AAC 50.030 to adopt by reference into the State Air Quality Control Plan the Municipality of Anchorage’s revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan and its Appendices. 5. BRU/component affected: Air Quality 6. Cost of implementation to the state agency and available funding (in thousands of dollars): none Initial Year Subsequent


### FY 2009 Years Cost $ 0 $ 0 General fund $ 0 $ 0 Federal funds $ 0 $ 0

Other funds (specify) $ 0 $ 0

7. The name of the contact person for the regulations:

Name Scott Sloane Title Environmental Program Specialist Address Division of Air Quality, ADEC, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 P.O. Box 111800, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Telephone (907) 465-5176

E-mail address scott.sloane@alaska.gov

8. The origin of the proposed action: Division of Air Quality staff.

9. Date: 

### June 2 nd 

### , 2009 Prepared by: 

### /s/

Name (typed) Scott Sloane Title (typed) Environmental Program Specialist Telephone: (907) 465-5176

## RECEIVED
JUN3g

JL’ 

# -uí 

# AFFIDAVIflJF PUBLICATION

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OFPIJBUCCO PERIOD ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ALASKA DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL ONS8RVATION REGULATIONS

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) proposes to adopt rewiatlon changes In Title 18 of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) chapter 52 Emissions Inspection and Maffltenance Requirements for Motor vehicles, and Chapter 50 Air Quality Control.

The proposed changes to 18 AAC 52.005 would increase the time period during which a new model

year vehicle is exempt from a vehicle emissions test and exempt vehicles with historic %etEle plates and aiomcoaectorplates from havi€ to participate in the vehicle emsn testing proam.

The proposed changes to IS MC saosa update the federal reference for (ioveity guidelines for ‘se in economic hardship waeers. The proposed changes

to 18 MC 52.990 add definitions ol categorlesfor exempt vehicles including ‘historic exhibition useS ‘historic vehicle plate’ and ciJstom collector plate’.

ADEC is proposing to amend the State Air Quality Control Plan, which is adopted by reference in 18 MC 50.030, as foiows

update Volume U, Section Ii: Air Quality Control Pro’a,n,



### — update Volwiie A, Section II.
A: Statewide Carbon Mono,dde Coitol Program

to incorporate the revisions tO18 MC 52 iwse and update Vol 151* H, Section lii. 5: Anchorage tansponadon control Program to: update the Anchorage vehicle inspection and maintenance WM)program consistent with the changes to 18 MC 52 and local ordinances: update the carbon mono,Jde (CO) contingency control measures that could be implemented If Anchorage exceeds the Nationai Antleilt Ak Qusaty standard *1MQS) for COil the future demonstrate that the changes to die Anchorage tIM proanI do not inpact maintenance of the Natloiwl Ambient Ak QliaMySiaotlardfacO. update Volume HI, the Appendices to Volume ii to include the retsed 18 MC 52 regulations, the Anchorage emesion inventor) and projections. Anchorage’s technical analysis for complying with the NMQS for CO. and the Municipality of Anchorage’s most recent tIM ordinances and code.

You may comment on the proposed regulation changes. including the potential costs to ptivate

persons of complying and alternative practical methods of cool ptieng with the proposed changes. by Etmitting written comments to Scott Sloane, Oivtsion of Air Quality. ADEC, 410 WIlloughby Avenue. suite 303, P.O. Box 111800. Juneau, Alaska 9?811-Iaoo. or by facsimile at: (907) 465.5129. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on July 15th, 2009. Comments received after this date will

not be considered in final action on these rules.

The Department will hold a public hearing on this proposal on Monday, July 13th, 2009 from 12:30-1:30 pm, at the AOEC Baew Office BuUfl Conference Room A. 619 ship Creek Drive, Anchorage. Alaska. &al or written comment may be submitted at the hearing. The hearing will be extended if necessary to accommodate those present before 1:30 urn who did not have an opporWnlty to comment. If you will not be able to attend the public hearing in person, please contict CIndy Hell at (907) 269’7579 by July 10th, 2009 to make arrangements to participate by phone.

The State of Alaska. Department of Environmental Conservation coruphes with hell of the Asneslcans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you area person with a disability who may need a special accommodation in order to participate in this public
process, please contact Deborah Pock at (907) 269-0291 Dr 100 Relay Service 1400’770-S973flTY

or dial 711 within 3b days ol publication of this notice to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided. For a copy of the proposed regulation changes and

the Anchorage CO Maintenance Plan please refer to this ADEC wbpage ttttpidec.stateA.us/air1aptcalendar.hbn. or

contact Scott Sloane by telephone at (907)
465’5176. or by e-mail at scottstoaneoas.gev.

This is a SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE adding to the
ND11CE OF PUSUC COMMENT PERIOD thai was issued on June 8, 2009-concerning these proposed regulation revisions contained in tue Department of

Law file number 993.08-0144. This StJPPI.EMENTAI.

NOTICE is being issued.io incorporate the list of specific citetions addressed p the proposed regulation changes.

After the public comment period ends on July 15th,
2009. ADEC wIll either adopt these Or other provisions dealing with the same subject, without
further notice, or decide to lake no action on them.

The language of the final regulations may be fferent1rom that of the proposed reguf a lions. You should comment during the time allowed if your Interests could be affected. Written comments received are public records and are sublect to public fl

Statutory Authohty AS 4603.010. AS 46.03.020, AS 46.14.030. AS 4614.510

Statutes Being Implemented, interpreted, or Made specffln: AS 46.03.010. AS 4603.020, AS 46,14.030.

AS 46,14.510

FIs Infomiabon: The proposed regulation chars

are not expected to require an- increased appropriation

Published: June 14, 15 & 16, 2009 Dated June 12th, 2009
Is! Uny HarUg

Commissioner

ATI0NAi. ncGULAUONS NOncE INFOWAAI1ON (AS 4462.190(d))

1.flefl of

2. Geheral subject of regulation: Emissions

inspection arid Maintenance Requirements for
Motor Vehicles, and Air Quaity Control.

3. Citation of regulation: 18 MC 52 and 18 MC 50.

4. neastin for the proposed action: Update 18 MC

51005 with changes related to exemptions for

new motor vehides. vehicles with historic or
custom collector plates. Update 18 MC 52-060
with the federal reference for poverty wjidelines
for tEe is emichdshipwatre,s.Update 18

MC 52.990 with deilnibons, update is MC SêG3O to adopt by reference into the State Air Q.mIityConixol Plan the Muriiclpattyet

as d Mortate Maintenance Plan and its Appendices.

‘5. BRU/component alfected: Air Quality

6. Coist of implementation to the state agency and

available funding (in thousands of della’s): none

Initial Year Susequent FY2009 Years

Cost S0_ $O_ Generaiftaid So_ SO,......, Federalfijrids SO_ SO_
De ds W_ S0_

i.The name of the contact person for the

regulations.

Name: Scott Sloane Iltie: Erruimrm’15nlai Program Specialist Address: Division of Air Qualitc ADEC, 410 4ifIlioUitIy Ayentt. SUite 303 P0. Box 111800. JiJneaa Alaska mii.iane Telephone’ (907)465

- 5176 Email Adfless scottsioar,eaalaskagov

8. The origin of the,proposed action: Division of Air

Quality staff

9. Date: June 2nd, 2009

Prepared by s/

Name (typed) Scott Sloane title (typed) EzMrcminentaf Program Speclaist Telephone aypetfi (907) 465-5176 STOFO600

#646907 $1,952.16

STATE OF ALASKA

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Shone Drew being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he/she is

a representative of the Anchorage Daily News, a daily newspaper. That said

newspaper has been approved by the Third Judicial Court, Anchorage, Alaska, and it now and has been published in the English language Continually as a daily newspaper in Anchorage, Alaska, and it is now and during

all said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said

newspaper. That the annexed is

a copy of an advertisement as it

was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form)

of said newspaper on

June 14, 15 & 16, 2009

and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its

subscribers during all of said period. That the full amount of

the fee charged for the foregoing publication is not in excess of

the rate charged private individuals.

Signed

Subscribed and sworn to before

me this,-ió’ day

20 tIlSTATE

OF ALASKA

) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

) AFFIDAVIT

OF AGENCY RECORD

OF PUBLIC COMMENT I, Scott Sloane, Environmental

Program Specialist

for the Department

of Environmental Conservation,

being
duly sworn,

state

the following: The Department

of Environmental Conservation

did not receive

any factual

or other substantive information

that was submitted

in writing

as public comment

and that was relevant

to the accuracy, coverage,

or other aspect

of the Department

of Environmental Conservation regulations

on

18 AAC

52 Emissions Inspection

and Maintenance Requirements

for Motor Vehicles.Date:___________ Juneau, Alaska-

Sco S’dane, Environmental

Program Specialist SUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNTObeforemethis

i2.’ dayof A.Awsf_____ STAn(0FLASLEAsLKAC Ralph

B.

No

ublic

in and
for

e My CommissIon

expIres 05/10/10

State

of Alaska My commission

expires: os//C

/o.STATEOFALASKA

)THIRDJUDICIALDISTRICT

)ss. )AFFIDAVITOFORALHEARINGI,CynthiaLHell,—EnvironmentalConservationActingEnvironmentalProgramManager—,beingsworn,statethefollowing:ofDepartmentofOnJuly13,2009,at12:30pm,inRoomA,at619ShipCreekAve.Ste249.AnchorageAk,IpresidedoverapublichearingheldinaccordancewithAS44.62.210forthepurposeoftakingtestimonyinconnectionwiththeadoptionofchangesto18AAC52whichwouldchange18AAC52.005toincreasethetimeperiodduringwhichanewmodelyearvehicleisexemptfromavehicleemissionstestandexemptvehicleswithhistoricvehicleplatesandcustomcollectorplatesfromhavingtoparticipateinthevehicleemissionstestingprogram.Theproposedchangesto18AAC52.060undatethefederalreferenceforpovertyguidelines

foruseineconomichardshipwaivers.Theproposedchangesto18AAC52.990adddefinitionsofcategoriesforexemptvehicles.ADECisalsoamendingtheStateAirOualityControlPlanwhichisadoptedbyreferencein18AAC50.030.SUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNTObefore[NOTARYSEAL]DATE:Anchorage.Alaskai—/vthiaL./eiActingEnvironmental

/ProgramManager ZOO?. State ofAlaska NOTARY PUBLIC(athvLCaNingtliit4mswithflUheMycommissionexpires:12345678PUBLICHEARING9PROPOSEDCHANGESINTHEREGULATIONSDEALINGWITHEMISSIONS10INSPECTIONANDMAINTENANCEREQUIREMENTSFORMOTORVEHICLESAND11AIRQUALITYCONTROL121314July13,20091512:30p.m.16Anchorage,Alaska171819202122232425KRONASSOCIATES1113W.FireweedLane,Suite200Anchorage,Alaska99503(907)276—3554RECEIVEDJUL172009ADECAQ21PROCEEDINGS2(Onrecordat12:30p.m.)3THEREPORTER:Ontherecordat12:30p.m.4CINDYHElL:Hello,mynameisCindyHell.IamtheSActingEnvironmentalProgramManagerfortheAlaskaDepartment6ofEnvironmentalConservation.ItisJuly13th.Itis12:30p.m.7Weareat619ShipCreekAvenue,Suite249inConferenceRoomA.8Thepurposeofthishearingistoreceivetestimonyon9proposedamendmentstoAirQualityControlregulationsTitle18,10AlaskaAdministrativeCode,Chapter52Emissions,Inspectionand11MaintenanceRequirementsforMotorVehicles,including,adding12flexibilitytolegalenforcementoptionsandchangestoimprove13theclarityoftheStateAirQualityControlPlan.Remove14obsoletelanguageintoupdatedcontingencymeasuresandaspects15oftheconformityprocessandtheplansadoptedbyreference16datewithinChapter50.17Asofthistime,myself,andthetranscriptionistsarein18attendance.Thereisnoonefromthegeneralpublic.Wewill19begoingoffrecordatthistimeuntilsuchtimeassomeonemay20come.Offrecord.21THEREPORTER:Offtherecordat12:32p.m.22(Offrecordat12:32p.m.)23(Onrecordat1:30p.m.)24THEREPORTER:Backontherecordat1:30p.m.25CINDYHElL:ThisisCindyHeil.Wehadnopublic--weKRONASSOCIATES1113W.FireweedLane,Suite200Anchorage,Alaska99503(907)276—355431receivednopubliccommentonourRegulationstoday.Wedid2haveonememberfromtheMunicipalityofAnchorageattendto3listenin.4Itis,again,July13thItis1:30p.m.Itis--weare5atShipCreekAvenue619,Suite249inAnchorage,Alaska.6MynameisCindyHeilandthishearing’sclosed.7THEREPORTER:Offtherecordat1:30p.m.8(Offrecordat1:30p.m.)910111213141516171819202122232425KRONASSOCIATES1113W.FireweedLane,Suite200Anchorage,Alaska99503(907)276—355441TRANSCRIBER’SCERTIFICATE2I,JanelleNakea,herebycertifythattheforegoingpages3numbered2through3areatrue,accurateandcomplete4transcriptofproceedingsofthePublicHearing,ProposedSchangesintheRegulationsdealingwithEmissionsInspectionand6MaintenanceRequirementsforMotorVehiclesandAirQuality7control,heldJuly13,2009atAnchorage,Alaska,transcribedbyBmefromacopyofthedigitalsoundrecordingtothebestofmy9knowledgeandability._______________________12DateanelleNakea1314‘S161718192021222324KRONASSOCIATES1113W.FireweedLane,Suite200Anchorage,Alaska99503(907)276—3554RECEIVEDJUL172009ADECAQSTATEOFALASKA))FIRSTJUDICIALDISTRICTAFFIDAVITOFNOTICEOFPROPOSEDADOPTIONOFREGULATIONSANDFURNISHINGOFADDITIONALINFORMATIONI,ScottSloane,EnvironmentalProgramSpecialistIII,oftheDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,beingsworn,statethefollowing:AsrequiredbyAS44.62.190,noticeoftheproposedadoptionofchangesto18AAC52EmissionsInspectionandMaintenanceRequirementsforMotorVehiclesand18AAC50AirQualityControlhasbeengivenbybeing:(I)publishedinanewspaperortradepublication;(2)furnishedtointerestedpersons;(3)furnishedtoappropriatestateofficials;(4)furnishedtotheDepartmentofLaw,alongwithacopyoftheproposedregulations;(5)electronicallytransmittedtoincumbentStateofAlaskalegislators;(6)furnishedtotheLegislativeAffairsAgency,LegislativeLibrary;(7)postedontheAlaskaOnlinePublicNoticeSystemasrequiredbyAS44.62.175(a)(1)and(b)and44.62.190(a)(1);(8)furnishedelectronically,alongwithacopyoftheproposedregulations,totheLegislativeAffairsAgency,thechairoftheResourcesCommitteeoftheAlaskaSenateandHouseofRepresentatives,theAdministrativeRegulationReviewCommittee,andthelegislativecouncil.AsrequiredbyAS44.62.190(d),additionalregulationsnoticeinformationregardingtheproposedadoptionoftheregulationchangesdescribedabovehasbeenfurnishedtointerestedpersonsandthosein(5)and(6)ofthelistabove.TheadditionalregulationsnoticeinformationalsohasbeenpostedontheAlaskaOnlinePublicNoticeSystem.DATE:/’?,2ct4/ottSloaneSUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNTObeforemethis/7‘dayof_______Nota/”ublicinandfortheStateofAlaskaMycommissionexpires:5/O10STATEOFALASKAOFFICIALSEALRalphB.ErIcksonNOTARYPUBLICMyCommissionExpires05/10/jO

### 1 

## DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 52 Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor Vehicles

18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control

Public Review Draft

June 8 th 

## , 200 9

Sarah Palin

Governor

Larry Hartig

Commissio ner

### Register ____, ________ 200 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT

2 The lead in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read:

18 AAC 50.030. St ate air quality control plan. Volumes II and III of the State Air

Quality Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this

chapter, as amended through { Effective Date of Regulations } [FEBRUARY 20, 2009], are

adopted by reference. The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by

reference:

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; am

1/1/2 000; Register 152; am 12/30/2000; Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 1/27/2002, Register 161; am 3/2/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, Register 169; am 6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171 ; am 12/14/2006, Register 180; am 12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; am 11/9/2008, Register 188 ; am__/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140

18 AA C 52.005 is amended to read:

(c) In addition to the requirements of (a) of this section,

(1) a motorist described in (b) of this section shall

(A) have that motorist’s motor vehicle inspected every two years as required by this chapter unless

(i) the requ irement is waived under 18 AAC 52.060 ; or

(ii) the vehicle is a model year (MY) 2006 [2004] or newer; if the vehicle is a model year 2006 or [2004 OF ] or newer, the vehicle’s first inspection is due when the current calendar year equals the vehicle

model year plus six [ FOUR ] years ; subsequent inspections are due every

### Register ____, ________ 200 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT

3 two years after the year the vehicle’s first inspection is due ;

(f) The I/M requirements of this chapter do not apply to

(1) a 1967 or older motor vehicle;

(2) repealed 02/18/2006 ;

(3) a gasoline

- powered motor vehicle that has an unladen weight of 12,001 pounds or heavier;

(4) a test vehicle for which the department has issued a written exemption;

(5) a military tactical vehicle such as a tank;

(6) a motorcycle, golf cart, al l

- terrain vehicle, snow machine, and motor

- driven cycle (moped);

(7) a motor vehicle that has been or will be in Alaska for less than 30 days; [ OR ]

(8) an electric vehicle ; [.]

(9) a motor vehicle for which the Division of Motor Vehicle s has issued

h istoric vehicle plates for historic exhibition use; or

(10) a motor vehicle for which the Division of Motor Vehicle s has issued custom collector plates.

(Eff. 2/1/94, Register 129; am 6/24/94, Register 130; am 1/4/95, Register 133; am 1/1/97, Regis ter 140; am 1/1/98, Register 144; am 1/1/2000, Register 152; am 3/27/2002, Register 161; am 02/18/2006, Register 177; am 5/17/2008, Register 186 ; am__/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.010 AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.510

AS 46.03.020

18 AAC 52.060 is amended to read :

(d) The implementing agency may grant a motorist a time extension not to exceed one inspection cycle to obtain needed repairs on a vehicle in the case of

### Register ____, ________ 200 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT

4 (1) economic hardship when waiver requirements are not met; t he implementing agency may grant only one time extension under this paragraph and shall revoke the extension if it is determined that the motorist no longer qualifies for an extension under this paragraph; the implementing agency may grant an economic hard ship extension only if the motorist proves that

(A) the motorist's adjusted gross income, as computed for the preceding year and reported to the United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), is at or below the poverty level as determined under the United States Department of Health and Human Servic es poverty guidelines for this state publis hed at

74 Fed

. Reg

. 4199

- 4201 (January 23, 2009 ) [ 73 F ED . R EG

. 3971

– 3972 (J ANUARY 23, 2008) ]

, adopted by reference in this chapter; for a time extension under this subparagraph, the motorist must submit a copy of the motorist's federal income tax return filed for the year preceding the extension request; or

(Eff. 2/1/94, Register 129; am 6/24/94, Register 130; am 1/4/95, Register 133; am 1/1/97, Register 140; am 1/1/98, Register 144; am 1/1/2000, Register 152; am 3/27/2002, Register 161 ; am 02/18/2006, Register 177 ; am 5/17/2008, Register 186 ; am__/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.510

18 AAC 52.990 is amended to read:

(78) “new vehicle” means a vehicle

(A) that is a 2006 [2004] model year vehicle or newer ; and

(B) with a model year number that is no lower than the number of the current calendar year minus four.

(79) “historic exh ibition use” means an advertised show, parade or exhibition that is open to the public, to include the transport to or from said show, parade or exhibition.

(80) “historic vehicle plate” means a permanent registration plate or plates

of distinctive des ign and color bearing no dates, numbered in a separate numerical sequence beginning with Historic Vehicle 1 (HV1) provided the vehicle was

manufactured thirty or more years before the year of application and the vehicle owner has made an affidavit stating the vehicle will be driven or moved upon a highway for the primary purpose of historical exhibition use.

### Register ____, ________ 200 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DRAFT

5 (81) “custom collector plate” means a special plate or plates issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles to a vehicle whose body and frame were manu factured before 1949 or a replica of a vehicle who s e body and frame were manufactured before 1949 and that has been modified for safe road use; in this paragraph,

“modified” includes a mat e rial alteration of the drive

- train, suspension, brake system, or di mensions of the body per AS 28.05.106.

(Eff. 2/1/94, Register 129; am 6/24/94, Register 130; am 1/1/97, Register 140; am 1/1/98, Register 144; am 1/1/2000, Register 152; am 12/30/2000, Register 156; am 3/27/2002, Register

161 ; am 02/18 /2006, Register 177 ; am__/__/____, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.010 AS 46.14.030 AS 46.14.510

AS 46.03.020MEMORANDUMTO:Hon.LarryHartigDATE:CommissionerDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationFiLENO.: State

of AlaskaDepartmentofLawSeptember29,2009993-08-0144FROM:StevenC.AssistantAttorneyGeneralLegislation/RegulationsSection--JuneauTELEPHONENO.:465-3600SUBJECT:Regulationsre:stateairqualitycontrolplanandAnchoragevehicleemissioninspectionandmaintenance(1/M)program(I8AAC5O.030;I8AAC52.005(c),(0;18AAC52.060(d);18AAC52.990(78))UnderAS44.62.060,wehavereviewedtheattachedregulationschangesbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,andapprovethechangesforfilingbythelieutenantgovernor.IhavereviewedthisprojectunderaspecificdelegationdatedSeptember21,2009fromtheRegulationsAttorney.Aduplicateoriginalofthismemorandumisbeingfurnishedtothelieutenantgovernor,alongwiththethreepagesofregulationsandtherelateddocuments.Youmightwishtocontactthelieutenantgovernor’sofficetoconfirmthefilingdateandeffectivedateoftheattachedregulationchanges.TheJune10,2009publicnotice,theJune14,2009supplementalpublicnotice,andtheSeptember25,2009adoptionorderallstatethatthisactionisnotexpectedtorequireanincreasedappropriation.Therefore,afiscalnoteunderAS44.62.195isnotrequired.scwccw/cnc:GaryMendivil,RegulationsContactDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationScottSloaneDivisivaofAirQualityDepartmentofEnvironmentaiConservalionJenniferL.SchorrAssislantAttorneyGeneralEnvironmentalSection--AnchorageRegister_,____
2010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION The lead-in language

of

18 AAC 50.030

is amended

to read: 18 AAC 50.030.

State

air quality control

plan. Volumes

II and

III of the State

Air Quality Control

Plan

for implementing

and enforcing

the provisions

of AS 46.14

and this chapter,

as amended through Au2ust

5, 2009 [FEBRUARY

20, 20091,

are adopted

by reference. The plan includes

the following documents

which

are also adopted

by reference: (Eff. 1/18/97, Register

141;

am 6/21/98, Register

146;

am 9/4/98, Register

147;

am 1/1/2000, Register

152;

am 12/30/2000,
Register

156;

am 9/21/2001, Register

159;

am 1/27/2002, Register 161;

am 3/27/2002, Register

161;

am 5/3/2002, Register

162;

am 2/20/2004, Register

169;

am 6/24/2004, Register

170;

am 10/1/2004, Register

171;

am 12/14/2006,
Register

180;

am 12/30/2007,
Register

184;

am 5/17/2008, Register

186;

am 7/25/2008, Register

187;

am 11/9/2008, Register

188;

am 5/6/2009, Register

190;

am _/j
,Register_____ Authority:

AS 46.03.020

AS 46.14.030

Sec.

30,
ch. 74, SLA
1993 AS 46.14.020

AS 46.14.140 18 AAC 52.005(c)(l)(A)(ii)

is amended

to read: (ii)
the vehicle

is

a model

year (MY) 2006 [2004]

or newer;

if the vehicle

is

a model

year 2006 [2004J

or newer,

the vehicle’s

first inspection

is due when

the current calendar

year equals

the vehicle model

year plus
jj [FOUR] years; subsequent inspections

are due every

two years after

the year

the vehicle’s first inspection

is due;Register_,____2010ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION18AAC52.005(f)isamendedbyaddingnewparagraphstoread:(9)amotorvehicleforwhichthedivisionofmotorvehiclesintheDepartmentofAdministrationhasissued,underAS28.10.181(b)and13AAC40.010,acurrent,validspecialregistrationandregistrationplatesforahistoricvehicle;or(10)amotorvehicleforwhichthedivisionofmotorvehiclesintheDepartmentofAdministrationhasissued,underAS28.10.181(r)andAS28.90.990,acurrent,validspecialregistrationandregistrationplatesforacustomcollectorvehicle.(Eff.2/1/94,Register129;am6/24/94,Register130;am1/4/95,Register133;am1/1/97,Register140;am1/1/98,Register144;1/1/2000,Register152;am3/27/2002,Register161;am2/18/2006,Register177;am5/17/2008,Register186;am_/_/,Register_____Authority:AS46.03.010AS46.14.030AS46.14.510AS46.03.02018AAC52,060(dXl)(A)isamendedtoread:(A)themotorist’sadjustedgrossincome,ascomputedfortheprecedingyearandreportedtotheUnitedStatesDepartmentoftheTreasury,InternalRevenueService(IRS),isatorbelowthepovertylevelasdeterminedundertheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicespovertyguidelinesforthisstatepublishedat74Fed.Re2.4199-4201(January23,2009)[73FED.REG.3971-3972(JANUARY23,2008)],adoptedbyreferenceinthischapter;foratimeextensionunderthissubparagraph,themotoristmustsubmitacopyofthemotorist’sfederalincometaxreturnfiledfortheyearprecedingtheextensionrequest;or2Register_,____2010ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION(Eff.2/1/94,Register129;am6/24/94,Register130;am1/4/95,Register133;am1/1/97,Register140;am1/1/98,Register144;am1/1/2000,Register152;am3/27/2002,Register161;am2/18/2006,Register177;am5/17/2008,Register186;am//,Register____Authority:AS46.03.020AS46.14.030AS46.14.51018AAC52.990(78)isamendedtoread:(78)“newvehicle”meansavehicle(A)thatisamodelyear2006[2004]ornewer;and(B)withamodelyearnumberthatisnolowerthanthenumberofthecurrentcalendaryearminussix[FOUR].(Eff.2/1/94,Register129;am6/24/94,Register130;am1/1/97,Register140;am1/1/98,Register144;am1/1/2000,Register152;am12/30/2000,Register156;am3/27/2002,Register161;am2/18/2006,Register177;am/j,Register_____Authority:AS46.03.010AS46.14.030AS46.14.510AS46.03.020RECEIVEDSEP302009ADECAQAdopted Insert Date 

# Anchorage CO Maintenance Plan

Proposed Revision to the State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan

Vol. II: Analysis of Pr oblems, Control Actions

Section III.B: Anchorage Tr ansportation Control Program

Prepared by the Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services

for submission to the Alaska Department of En vironmental Conservation

for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality

Approved by the AMATS Poli cy Committee June 2, 2009 Adopted by the Anchorag e Assembly May 26, 2009Adopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)Adopted Insert Date 

### A note on the format and organization of this document.

This document is organized and formatted to be consistent with the State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan. This document is intended to replace Section IIIB, Volume II of the plan and is organized accordingly.Adopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.1-5 Adopted Insert date 

### Introductory Note: In this document each reference to “CAAA” means the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-549.

SECTION III.B ANCHO RAGE CARBON MONOXIDE CONTROL PROGRAM

III.B.1. Planning Process

Background

Anchorage was first declared a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) on January 27, 1978. The Alaska Department of E nvironmental Conservation (ADEC) had

recommended that the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) designate a major portion of the Anchorage urban area as a nonattainment area for CO. The EPA accepted this recommendation, and in 1982 th e Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) prepared a CO attainment plan which was incorporated as a revision to the State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan. The State of Alaska Air Qu ality Control Plan serves as the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. A pr imary goal of the Anchorage CO plan was to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by December 31, 1987.

Anchorage, however, failed to achieve attainment by the December 31, 1987 deadline mandated in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). The Clean Air Act was amended again in November 1990. When th ese amendments were published, the EPA designated Anchorage as a “moderate” nona ttainment area for CO and required the submission of a revised air quality plan to bring Anchorage into attainment with the NAAQS by December 31, 1995. The MOA prepared a revised air quality attainment plan that was approved by the Anchorage Metropoli tan Area Transportati on Solutions (AMATS) Policy Committee and Anchorage Assembly in December 1992. It was later approved by

the EPA as a revision to the Alaska SIP in 1995. However, two violations* of the NAAQS were measured in 1996. As a consequence, on July 13, 1998, the EPA reclassified Anchorage from a “moderate” to a “serious” nonattainment area for CO.

Anchorage has not violated the NAAQS si nce 1996. Upon review of Anchorage CO monitoring data, EPA determined that Anchor age had attained the NAAQS. This finding was published in a July 12, 2001 Federal Regist er Notice (Federal Register Vol. 66, No.134, pages 36476-36477, effective August 13, 2001). Howe ver an “attainment finding” in and of itself is not sufficient to redesignate an area to attainment. The CAAA establishes additional planning requirements that must be satisfied be fore the EPA administrator can reclassify an area to attainment. An attainment plan a nd subsequently, a maintenance plan must be submitted to EPA for approval. The attainment plan, which shows that Anchorage achieved the emission reductions necessary to a ttain the CO NAAQS by the December 31, 2000 deadline stipulated in the CA AA for serious CO nonattainment areas, was completed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly on Sept ember 25, 2001. ADEC incorporated the plan

as a revision to the Alaska SIP which was later approved by the EP A effective October 18,

2002.

* Three exceedances of the NAAQS were measured at both the Seward Highway site and Benson site. Because the NAAQS allows one exceeda nce of the NAAQS per year at each site, three exceedances at a site

constitute two violations.III.B.1-6 Adopted Insert date 

### After the approval of the attainment plan, a main tenance plan was prepared. It showed that CO emissions in Anchorage would remain at a le vel that assures conti nued attainment of the NAAQS through calendar year 2023. The maintenance plan was approved by the Anchorage Assembly on October 7, 2003 and submitted to ADEC as a proposed revision to the Alaska SIP. ADEC obtained approval of th is SIP revision by the EPA, effective July 23, 2004. With this approval, the EPA Regional Ad ministrator reclassified Anchorage from

serious CO nonattainment to an area that is in attainment with the NAAQS. The primary CO control measures committed for implementation in the 2004 maintenance plan were the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Pr ogram, the Share-A-Ride / Vanpool Program, and the block heater promotion program.

On November 6, 2007 the Anchorage Assembly voted to discontinue the I/M Program by December 31, 2009 or earlier if EPA approval of the SIP revision necessary to delete this committed SIP measure could be obtained.* However, on July 15, 2008 they revoked this

action and voted to continue I/M with some mo difications. The most significant change to the I/M Program was extending the testing exemp tion for new cars from four to six years. Beginning January 2010, the first I/M test will be required six years af ter the purchase of a new car instead of four years.†

The document contained herein is a revision to the 2004 maintenance plan. This document outlines on-going and future commitments to ensure continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in Anchorage.

To ensure that there is adequate participati on by local elected officials and citizens in this planning process, the CAAA contain specific ma ndatory attainment planning provisions. These requirements, and MOA's respons e to them, are discussed below.

Local Planning Process

The Anchorage air quality maintenance plan was prepared in accordance with the provisions of sections 110(a)(2 )(M) and 174 of the CAAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(m) and 42 U.S.C. 7504), which require the consultation and partic ipation of local political subdivisions and local elected officials. Under section 174 ( 42 U.S.C. 7504), the revised plan submitted to EPA as a formal SIP amendment must be pr epared by "an organiza tion certified by the State, in consultation with elec ted officials of local governments." Such an organization is required to include local electe d officials and representatives of the following organizations:

 the state air quality plan ning agency (i.e., ADEC);

 the state transportation planning agency (i .e., Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT/PF)); and

 the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) responsible for the Continuing, Cooperative, and Comprehensive (3C) tr ansportation planning process for the

affected area.

* Assembly Ordinance 2007-122(S)

† These actions were taken in Assembly Ordinance 2008-84(S). The ordinance also exempts vehicles with historical and classic license pl ates from testing.III.B.1-7 Adopted Insert date 

### In 1976, the governor designated the MOA as th e MPO for the Anchorage urbanized area. Consequently, the MOA conducts the 3C tran sportation planning process required under federal regulation, in cooperation with ADEC and ADOT/PF, through the AMATS planning group. In 1978, the governor designated MOA as the lead air quality planning agency in Anchorage. Based on this desi gnation, MOA has continued its ro le as the lead air quality planning agency in the Anchorage area for the preparation of this plan. The air quality planning process is outlined in the AMATS Intergovernmental Operating Agreement for Transportation and Air Quality Planning. This agreement was last revised in August 2002 and became effective January 1, 2003. This ope rating agreement establ ishes the roles and relationships between governmental entities i nvolved in the Anchorage air quality planning

process.

Development of this plan required close coor dination between air quality and transportation planning agencies in the community. This c oordination was ensured through the oversight of the AMATS Policy Committee during plan development. AMATS is an on-going comprehensive transportation planning process for Anchorage. Cooperative efforts include 1) projecting future land use trends a nd transportation demands; 2) recommending longrange solutions for transporta tion needs; and 3) working together to implement the

recommendations. The AMATS structure consis ts of a two-tiered committee system that reviews all transportation pla nning efforts within the area.

The AMATS Policy Committee provides guidance and control over studies and recommendations developed by support staff. Voting members of the Policy Committee are

listed below.

 MOA Mayor;

 ADOT/PF Central Regi onal Director;

 MOA Assembly representative;

 MOA Assembly representative; and

 ADEC Commissioner or designee.

The AMATS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and member support staff analyze transportation and land use issues and deve lop draft recommendations for the Policy Committee. Voting members include the following:

 MOA Traffic Director;

 MOA Project Management a nd Engineering Director;

 MOA Planning Director;

 MOA Public Transportation Director;

 MOA Department of Health & Hu man Services representative;

 MOA Port of Anchorage Director;

 ADOT/PF Chief of Planni ng & Administration;

 ADOT/PF Regional Pre-Cons truction Engineer;

 ADEC representative;

 Alaska Railroad representative; and

 AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee representative.

In addition, to help provide pub lic input into the current ai r quality planning process by interested local groups and individual citizens, a third AMATS committee, the Air QualityIII.B.1-8 Adopted Insert date 

### Advisory Committee was appointed by the Policy Comm ittee. The Air Quality Advisory Committee is comprised of nine members. Committee membership has generally included at least one physician or health professiona l, a representative of the I/M industry, a representative of the environmental community, and a repr esentative from the Municipal Planning and Zoning Commission.

Air Quality Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of the Anchorage air quality maintenance plan provide the basis upon which the plan is developed and provide di rection for future policy decisions that may affect air quality. The goals a nd objectives of the plan must reflect the intent of the CAAA as well the values, views, and desires of the citi zens of Anchorage and th eir elected officials.

The goals and objectives need to integrate la nd use, air quality and transportation planning concerns. For this reason, the goals and objectiv es of this plan are designed to complement goals and objectives identified in the Anchor age Bowl Comprehensive Plan and Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan.

Primary Goals and Objectives:

1. Continued maintenance of the NAAQS for CO throughout the Municipality of Anchorage through 2023 and beyond. †



### 2. Prevention of significant dete rioration of air quality w ithin the Municipality of Anchorage.

3. Development and implementation of control measures necessary to maintain compliance with the NAAQS through 2023.

4. Identification of contingency measures to be implemented if violations of the NAAQS

occur. 5. Establishment of a mobile source emission budget to be used in future conformity determinations of transpor tation plans and programs.

In addition to the primary goals and objectives , there are community goals and objectives

that must be considered and striven for dur ing the development and implementation of the plan.

Community Goals and Objectives:

1. Clear healthful air that is fr ee of noxious odors and pollutants.

2. Protection of the health of the citizens of the Municipality of Anchorage from the harmful effects of air pollution.

3. Establishment of an effective public informati on and participation program to ensure that

the citizens of the Muni cipality of Anchorage have an act ive role in air quality planning.

4. Minimization of the negative regulatory and economic impact of air pollution control measures on Anchorage citizens and businesses.

† Section 175A of the Clean Air Act requires maintenan ce plans to provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standard for at least ten y ears after redesignation. The Anchorage plan exceeds this minimum requirement and demonstrates maintenance for a 15-year period, 2009-2023. The original maintenance plan covered the 20-year period 2003-2023.III.B.1-9 Adopted Insert date 

### 5. Implementation and support of an efficient tr ansportation system that offers affordable, viable choices among various modes of travel that serve all parts of the community and aids in the achievement of the goals and obj ectives of the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality.

Plan Development

This maintenance plan is a natural extension of a research planning effort begun in early 1997. The MOA collaborated with EPA Region 10, ADEC and the Fairbanks North Star Borough on a number of research projects aimed at quantifying the contribution of vehicle cold starts and warm up idling on ambient CO concentrations in Anchorage and Fairbanks. These studies provided insights th at were important in developi ng this plan and in preparing the attainment and maintenance plans that preceded it.

The most significant revisions proposed in this maintenance plan are the extension of the new car I/M test exemption from four to si x years and modifications to the contingency plan. The contingency plan outlin es the actions that will be ta ken if Anchorage violates the CO NAAQS in the future. The revised con tingency plan can be found in Section III.B.7.

Public Participation Process

Section 110(a) of the CAAA (42 U.S.C. 7410(a )) requires that a stat e provide reasonable notice and public hearin gs of SIP revisions prior to thei r adoption and submission to EPA. To ensure that the public had adequate opportunity to comment on revisions to the Anchorage air quality attainment and maintenanc e plans, a multi-phase public involvement process, utilizing AMATS and th e Anchorage Assembly was used.

AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee – The AMATS Air Quality Advisory Committee held a public meeting on the maintenance pl an revisions on April 27, 2009. During this meeting they recommended that the AMATS Technical and Policy Committees adopt the plan as revised.

AMATS Technical and Policy Committees – After reviewing the recommendation of the AMATS Citizen Air Quality Advisory Comm ittee, on May 21, 2009, the AMATS Technical Committee recommended that the AMATS Policy Committee adopt the plan. Subsequent to this recommendation, the AMATS Po licy Committee met on June 2, 2009 to review and adopt the the plan.

Anchorage Assembly – The Anchorage Assembly adopted the plan during its regular public meeting held on May 26, 2009. A copy of Assembly Resolution AR 2009-144 is included in the Appendix to Section III.B.10.

ADEC hearings – The final opportunity for public i nvolvement occurs at the state administrative level. Prior to regulatory adoption of SIP revisions, ADEC holds public hearings on the revisions in the affected communities. ADEC will hold a public hearing on the Anchorage CO maintenance plan on July 13 th 

### , 2009. This will provide another forum for the public to comment on the air quality plan pr ior to state adoption and submission to EPA.III.B.2-10 Adopted Insert date 

### III.B. 2. Maintenance Area Boundary

Portions of the MOA were first identified as experiencing high levels of ambient CO concentrations in the early 1970s. The nona ttainment area within the MOA was first declared on January 27, 1978 after the completi on of a monitoring study that measured CO

concentrations at numerous locations. The re sults of that study were included in the 1979 State Air Quality Plan. EPA reaffirmed the boundari es of the nonattainment area on November 6, 1991 (56 Fed.Reg. 56694, 56711)(40 C. F.R. 81.302. These same boundaries serve as the Anchorage CO Maintenance Area contained within the boundary described as

follows:

Beginning at a point on the centerline of the New Seward Highway five hundred (500) feet south of the centerline of O’Malley Road; thence,

Westerly along a line five hundred (500) feet south of and parallel to the centerline of O’Malley Road and its westerly extension thereof to a point on the mean high tide line of the Turnagain Arm; thence,

Northwesterly along the mean high tide line to a point five hundred (500) feet west of the southerly extension of the centerline of Sand Lake Road; thence,

Northerly along a line five hundred (500) feet west of and parallel to the southerly extension of the centerline of Sand Lake Road to a point on th e southerly boundary of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport property; thence,

Westerly along said property line of the Ted St evens Anchorage International Airport to an angle point in said property line; thence,

Northerly along said property of the Ted Steven s Anchorage International Airport to an angle point in said property line; thence,

Easterly, along said property line and its easterly extension thereof to a point five hundred (500) feet west of the southerly extension of the centerline of Wisconsin Street; thence,

Northerly along said line to a point on the m ean high tide line of the Knik Arm; thence,

Northeasterly along the mean high tide line to a point on a line parallel and five hundred (500) feet north of the centerline of Thompson Street and the westerly extension thereof; thence,

Easterly along said line to a point five hundred (500) feet east of Boniface Parkway; thence,

Southerly along a line five hundred (500) feet east of and parallel to the centerline of Boniface Parkway to a point five hundred (500) feet north of the Glenn Highway; thence,

Easterly and northeasterly along a line five hundred (500) feet north of and parallel to the centerline of the Glenn Highway to a point five hundr ed (500) feet east of the northerly extension of the centerline of Muldoon Road; thence,

Southerly along a line five hundred (500) feet east of and parallel to the centerline of Muldoon Road and continuing southwesterly on a line of curvat ure five hundred (500) feet southeasterly of the

centerline of curvature where Mul doon Road becomes Tudor Road to a point five hundred (500) feet south of the centerline of Tudor Road; thence,

Westerly along a line five hundred (500) feet south of the centerline of Tudor Road to a point five hundred (500) feet east of the centerline of Lake Otis Parkway; thence,

Southerly, southeasterly, then southerly along a line five hundred (500) feet parallel to the centerline of Lake Otis Parkway to a point five hundred (500) feet south of the centerline of O’Malley Road; thence,

Westerly along a line five hundred (500) feet south of the centerline of O’Malley Road, ending at the centerline of the New Seward Highway , which is the point of the beginning.III.B.2-11 Adopted Insert date 

### The maintenance area boundary is shown in Figur e III.B.2-1. This boundary is identical to the nonattainment boundary identif ied in previous attainment plans and it became the maintenance area boundary for the Municipali ty of Anchorage on July 23, 2004 when the the EPA approved the original Anchorage main tenance plan. Figure III.B.2-1 also shows the locations of CO monitoring stations in An chorage. Monitoring at a number of these

stations has been discontinued because measured values at these stations were low relative to other comparable sites in the network.

Figure III.B.2-1 MOA CO Monitoring Network a nd Maintenance Area BoundaryPublic Review Draft June 8 th , 2009 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.3-13 Adopted Insert Date 

### III.B.3. Nature of the CO Problem – Causes and Trends

Sources of CO – 2007 Area-wide Base Year Emission Inventory

Section 187 of the CAAA (42 U.S.C. 7512a) re quires serious CO nona ttainment areas to submit an inventory of actual emissions from all sources in accordance with guidance developed by EPA. This emission inventory, Anchorage Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory and Projections 2007 – 2023 , is contained in the Appendix to Section III.B.3.

The area inventoried includes the entire Anchor age maintenance area including areas to the west and east of the inventory boundary. Thes e areas are included because of the growth and development that have occurred there over the past three decades. Elmendorf Air Force

Base and Fort Richardson are not included in the inventory area.

According to the latest inventory compiled fo r the Anchorage area for base year 2007, 67%

of winter season CO emissions in the main tenance area were from motor vehicles. 1 

### Because a large portion of these motor vehicle emissions are produced from cold engines and warmup idling, a significant amount of resources a nd effort were devoted to accurately quantifying these impacts. The EPA MOBILE model is poorly suited for estimating this component of motor vehicle emissions. The MOA collaborated with the Fairbanks North Star Borough and ADEC on a local research effort aimed at quantifying the contribution of cold weather warm-up idling on the emission inve ntory. This research suggests that cold starts and warm-up idling are a very important component of vehicle emissions. In the winter, many Anchorage drivers engage in exte nded warm-ups, particul arly prior to their morning commute. A study conducted in Anchor age during the winter of 1998-99 indicated that the average warm-up period fo r morning commuters was 12 minutes. 2



### Over the course of a 24-hour winter day, warm-u p idling is estimated to account for nearly a quarter of all vehicle emissions generated in th e Anchorage bowl. In so me residential areas, idling accounts for almost half of all the CO emissions generated. Cold winter temperatures

increase "cold start" emissions. When th e EPA MOBILE6 model is run with Anchorage
fleet characteristics, CO emissions at st art up are almost three times greater at 20  F than at

65  F.

Other significant sources of CO in Anchorage include airc raft and residential wood burning. Estimated 2007 CO emissions sources in Anchorag e are summarized in Table III.B.3-1. In addition to the base year 2007 inventory, em ission forecasts were prepared for 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023. These forecasts were used to develop the long term maintenance projections presented later in Section III.B.5.

Grid-based inventories were de veloped for each year. These grid-based inventories provide separate estimates of emissions for the 200 one square kilometer grid cells that make up the Anchorage inventory area. These grid-based es timates of emissions were further resolved by time-of-day. An estimate of the quantity of CO emitted during the AM peak traffic period (7 AM – 9 AM), the PM peak (3 PM - 6 PM) and off peak periods (6 PM- 7 AM and 9 AM – 3 PM) was provided for each grid cell. The results and methodology used to prepare these inventories is discussed in detail in the Appendix to Section III.B.3.III.B.3-14 Adopted Insert Date 

### Table III.B.3-1
Sources of Anchorage CO Emissions in 2007 Base Year (Area-wide)

Source Category CO Emitted (tons per day) % of total

Motor vehicle – on-road travel 51.0 50.5%

Motor vehicle – warm-up idle 16.3 16.2%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Operations 12.4 12.2%

Merrill Field Airport Operations 0.7 0.7%

Wood burning – fireplaces and wood stoves 6.2 6.2%

Space heating – natural gas 3.8 3.7%

Miscellaneous (railroad, marine, snowmobiles, snow removal, portable electrical generators, welding, etc.) 9.3 9.2%

Point sources (power generation, sewage sludge incineration) 1.3 1.3%

TOTAL 101.0 100%

Analysis of CO Emissions Sources in Turnagain Area

In addition to the area-wide inventory discusse d above, a micro-inventor y was also prepared for the nine square kilometer area surrounding the Turnagain monitoring station in west Anchorage. The Turnagain sta tion exhibits the highest CO c oncentrations of the current monitoring network; it has been shown to be approximately 20% higher than the next highest site. Analysis of hi storical CO data from over tw enty monitoring locations in Anchorage suggests that the CO c oncentrations measured at this site are representative of the highest concentrations in Anchorage. 3 

### This micro-inventory provides added insight into the sources of CO in this part icular area and is useful in developing appropriate localized control strategies. The boundaries of this ni ne square kilometer micro-inventory area are shown in Figure III.B.3-1 (a). This is one of the most densely populated and heavily trafficked areas of Anchorage. It also in cludes residential neighbor hoods where vehicles are parked outside at night resulting in a prevalen ce of cold starts and warm-up idling. As can be seen in the figure, gridded inventory results sugge st that CO emissions in this area are among the highest in the Anchorage bowl.III.B.3-15 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.3-1 (a) CO Emissions Distribution in Anchorage (Turnagain Micro-inventory B oundary noted with Red Border)

A breakdown of CO emissions in the Turnagain ar ea is shown in Figure III.B.3-1 (b). Total estimated CO emissions during a 24-hour winter weekday were estimated to be 5.99 tons per day in 2007. These emissions can also be broken down by time-of-day to gain further insight into the nature of the CO sources in the Turnagain area. Fi gure IIII.B.3-1(c) shows CO emission rates (in lbs/hou r) by source during the AM peak, PM peak and off-peak periods. Note that warm-up idle emissions are particularly significant during the AM peak. Not surprisingly, the Turnagain station t ypically exhibits it s highest hourly CO concentrations shortly after this AM peak.III.B.3-16 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.3-1(b)

24–Hour CO Emissions in the 9 km 2 

### Area Surrounding the Turnagain Station Base Year 2007 Inventory

warm-up idle

19%

on-road Travel

54% fireplaces &

woodstoves

10% space heating

5% other

12%

Total CO emissions = 6.01 tons per day



### Figure III.B.3-1(c) CO Emission Rate by Time-of-Day in Area Surrounding the Turnagain Station Base Year 2007 Inventory

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

AM Peak PM Peak Off PeakCO emissions (lbs per hour) other space heating fireplaces & woodstoves

on-road travel warm-up idleIII.B.3-17 Adopted Insert Date 

### Evidence suggests that CO emissions from the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, located approximately two kilometers west of the Turnagain monitoring site, have

little effect on ambient CO concentrations in the Turnagain area. CO monitoring at the airport itself suggests that concentrations there are rela tively low. Although total CO emissions from the airport are significant ( 12.4 tons per day in 2007), they are spread out over a large area so that the CO emissi ons density (in pounds emitted per square kilometer/day) is relatively low. The em ission density in some one-kilometer grids immediately surrounding the Turnagain monitor is four or five times greater than the airport (see Figure III.B.3-1 (a).

Future Periodic Inventories

Periodic inventories are not required for maintenance areas. CAAA Section 175A(b) requires the submission of a SIP revision eigh t years after redesignation as a maintenance area. An emission inventory will be prepared to support this SIP revision. The MOA and/or ADEC may choose to prepare an additiona l inventory(s) in the interim.

Summary of Local Research

Beginning in 1997, the MOA, in cooperation with the EPA, ADEC, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough, conducted a number of studies to advance the u nderstanding of the causes of the winter season CO problem in Anchorage a nd Fairbanks. In part icular, these studies focused on quantifying the contribution of cold -starts and warm-up idling on the problem.

These studies are summarized below.

CO Saturation Monitoring Study (1997-98)

The MOA performed additional CO monito ring during the period December 4, 1997 - February 4, 1998. Sixteen temporary monitoring sites were establis hed to assess how well the four station permanent network was ch aracterizing the air quality near congested roadway intersections, in neighborhoods, and in parking lots. Monitoring was conducted at a total of 20 locations during th e study period. Six sites were located near major roadway intersections, five in neighbor hoods, and five in large retail or employee parking lots. The

maximum 8-hour concentrations measured at ea ch of the 20 sites in the study are compared in Figure III.B.3-2.III.B.3-18 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.3-2

Maximum 8-hour CO Concentrations Measur ed During CO Saturation Monitoring Study (1997-98)

The highest 8-hour CO concentrations were found at neighborhood loca tions with relatively low traffic volumes. The Turnagain nei ghborhood site (at Turnagain Street and 31 st


### Avenue) recorded the highest and second highe st 8-hour concentrati ons in the study. The next highest site was the Garden permanent station, also located in a neighborhood. Vehicle cold starts and warm-up idling by morning commu ters were implicated as the cause of the elevated CO observed in these neighborhoods.

The permanent station at Seward Highway record ed the highest concentration of any of the six roadway intersection sites. The study concluded that the permanent station at Seward Highway adequately characterizes the upper rang e of CO concentratio ns experienced near Anchorage’s major roadways. Lower than ex pected concentrations were found near a number of congested intersecti ons. For example, the highest concentration measured near the busy intersection of Lake O tis Boulevard and Tudor Road was about 50% lower than the Turnagain neighborhood site.

CO concentrations at the five parking lot sites were genera lly lower than those found in neighborhoods or near the major roadway inte rsections monitored during the study. This was somewhat surprising given the number of vehicle start ups that originated in these parking lots. Many of these start ups, especially in retail shopping park ing lots, were likely to be “hot starts,” however, meaning that engi nes were still warm fr om an earlier trip. Warmer engines emit considerably lower am ounts of CO and this may account for the relatively low ambient c oncentrations observed.III.B.3-19 Adopted Insert Date 

### Anchorage Winter Season Driver Idling Behavior Study (1997-98)

The MOA conducted a study between November 28, 1997 and January 31, 1998 aimed at quantifying the amount of warm-up idling perf ormed by Anchorage drivers. Field staff observed 1,321 vehicle starts at diverse locati ons in Anchorage. Warm-up idling duration was documented for trips that began at homes, work places, and other locations including shopping centers, restau rants, and schools.

Transportation planning models t ypically categorize trips into three categories as follows:

 Home-based work (HBW) trips – Commute tr ips that involve trav el directly from

home to work or from work to home.

 Home-based other (HBO) trips – Trips that originate from home to some location other than work (e.g., shopping center, school, health club, doctor office, etc.) or the return trip from the “other” locat ion if it returns directly home.

 Non home-based (NHB) trips – Trips that originate from some location other than home (e.g., work, shopping, etc.) an d are not a HBW or HBO trip.

Field observations were used to estimate idle duration for each of th e trip purpose categories described above. The longest warm-up idle times were associated with morning HBW trips. The average idle duration for these trips was over 7 minutes. About 35% of morning HBW trips involved vehicles parked overnight in heat ed garages. Idle duration for these vehicles averaged less than one minute. The average idle duration for vehicl es parked outside was over 12 minutes. The average idle durati on for evening HBW trips beginning at the workplace was 3.4 minutes. The shortest idle du rations were associated with morning and midday NHB trips that began at sites other than work or home. Median idle time for these trips was less than one minute.

Engine soak times, the length of tim e that an engine sits in the cold between trips, were also estimated as part of the driver idling behavi or study. Longer soak times result in colder engines and increased CO emissions. Data from a travel survey conducted by Hellenthal

and Associates for the MOA in 1992 were used to estimate soak times by trip purpose and time of day. Results of the driver idling behavior study are shown in Table III.B.3-2.

TABLE III.B.3-2 Anchorage Winter Season Driver Behavior Study Soak Time and Idle Duration by Time of Day and Trip Purpose

Soak Time (hours) Idle Duration (minutes)

Time of Day Trip Purpose Average Median Average Median

Morning

6:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. HBW 11.9 12.8 7.3 5.7

HBO 10.7 12.0 5.9 4.8

NHB 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.6
Midday 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. HBW 6.3 3.7 3.5 2.0

HBO 6.6 1.7 2.0 1.2

NHB 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.6
Evening 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. HBW 6.8 8.2 3.4 1.2

HBO 2.6 0.8 2.1 0.9

NHB 3.0 0.8 3.1 0.8
Night 6:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. HBW 5.8 4.5 3.0 1.2

HBO 2.0 1.2 2.6 2.7

NHB 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.3III.B.3-20 Adopted Insert Date 

### Table III.B.3-2 shows that the longest soak times and idle du rations are associated with morning HBW trips and HBO trips. Because most of these trips begin with a cold engine and involve long idles, it suggests that start up and idle CO emi ssions are likely to be greater than other trip types. Conversely, NHB trips, because they typically involve short soak times and idle durations, likely have relativ ely low start-up and idle CO emissions.

Alaska Drive Cycle Study (2000)

In 1996, EPA issued a final rule that revised th e certification test pr ocedure to account for the effects of aggressive driving conditions , high acceleration rates and air conditioning on motor vehicle emissions. The rule require d manufacturers to cont rol excess emissions produced under these previously unrepresent ed driving conditions and was phased-in between 2000 and 2002 model year vehicles. The rulemaking significantly impacted emission inventory estimates for all polluta nts by increasing estimates for pre-2000 model year vehicles and dramatically reducing emi ssions from post 2000 model year vehicles. A review of the high-speed, high acceleration rates represented in the new driving cycles led to concern about how well they represented winter time driving conditions when snow, ice and darkness are the prevalent conditio ns in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

Under contract with ADEC, Sierra Research worked with transportation agencies in Anchorage and Fairbanks to select representati ve routes in those communities. Data were collected using a “chase car” equipped with a GPS system to collect second-by-second position measurements over each of the routes driven. The “chase car” followed and mimicked the behavior of randomly selected vehi cles while driving over the route so that the collected data represented the operation of in-use vehicles. A total of 80 separate routes were driven in Anchorage a nd 79 routes in Fairbanks.

The position measurements in the collected da ta set were differentiated to produce speed estimates. Summary statistics were computed for each community and blended in proportion to each community’s share of their combined travel to produce an overall estimate of activity. The results showed that winter driving in Alas ka had almost none of the high speed, high acceleration ra te driving represented in EP A’s revised certification test procedure. As a result, a decision was made to not include the effects of these driving

conditions on the emission inventories de veloped for both Anchorage and Fairbanks.

The collected driving data was used to devel op a driving cycle representative of Alaska driving conditions. The approach used to develop the Alaska Driving Cycle was to select a mixture of driving patterns that best repr esented the overall speed acceleration frequency

distribution of the collected dataset. Over 5,000 candidate cycles were created. Adjustments were made to minimize brak e wear during decele rations and improve representation of constant speed activity. The resulting cycle was designed to mimic the federal test procedure (FTP) by establishing a co ld start, hot start a nd stabilized mode of operation. Bag 1, the cold start, includes 2 minutes of idle ac tivity and is 500 seconds long. Bag 3 is a repeat of Bag 1 with a hot start inst ead of a cold start. Bag 2 is 316 seconds long and represents operation between seconds 501 and 816.

Alaska Cold Temperature Vehicle Emission Studies (1998 – 2001)

In the time since the attainment and main tenance planning process began in 1997, two significant studies have been undertaken to bette r understand the nature of vehicle emissions

in Alaska’s cold winter climate. The M OA collaborated with ADEC and the FairbanksIII.B.3-21 Adopted Insert Date 

### North Star Borough on the design of these studie s, both of which were conducted by Sierra Research working under contract with ADEC.

During the winter of 1998-99, Sie rra Research conducted a study to quantify emissions from Alaskan vehicles during cold st art and idling. They equipped a large van with a modified Horiba IMVETS emissions test system that provided measurements of CO and hydrocarbon (HC) mass emissions on a second-by-second basis. The van could be driven from location to location to test a variety of vehicles representative of th e fleet mix in both Anchorage and

Fairbanks.

After an initial cold soak of four hours or more at ambient temperature, test vehicles were

cold-started and mass emissions were measured for a period of twenty minutes subsequent to start-up. Testing was c onducted at ambient temperatures that ranged from -6  F to +23  F in Anchorage and -36  F to +14  F in Fairbanks.

A second, follow-up vehicle emission study was c onducted in Fairbanks during the winter of 2000-2001. For this study, Sierra Research pr ocured a vehicle dynamometer that allowed

vehicle emissions to be measured in simulated transient or travel mode. Sierra Research performed a gamut of tests on a sample of 35 ve hicles selected to represent the Anchorage

and Fairbanks fleet mix. These tests included a variety of soak and warm-up times designed

to examine the influence of soak and idle times on CO emissions generated during the course of a vehicle trip. Tr ansient mode emissions were evaluated with the dynamometer using the Alaska Drive Cycle to best reflec t actual winter-season driving behavior in Anchorage. The emission reduction benefits of engine block heat er use were also evaluated.

Key findings from these two studies are summarized below:

 A large portion of CO emissions occur during warm-up idle. In order to simulate a typical morning commu te in Anchorage, CO emissions from coldstarted vehicles were measured during the course of a 10-minute warm-up and a subsequent 7.3 mile drive. The warm-up idle accounted for 68% of the total CO

emitted.

 Emissions decrease dramatically du ring the course of a warm-up idle. Testing showed that idle emissions drop significantly du ring the first five minutes, especially for newer model vehicles. Figure III.B.3-3 shows the decrease in emissions

over time.III.B.3-22 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.3-3

Cold Start Idle Emission Rate vs. Time (emissions in grams per minute)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cold Start Idle Time (minutes) a



###  Engine block heaters provide very significant reductions in cold start and warm-up idle

emissions. Test data showed that, during the first ten minutes of a warm-up idle, the use of an engine block heater reduced CO emissions by an average of 57%. Fuel consumption was reduced by 22% during this same ten-minute period.

 Anti-idling programs appear to offer little promise of signif icant CO emission

reductions. Test data showed that on an overall trip basis, CO emissions actually increase when warm-up idle times are cut shorter than 10 minutes. When the idle time is cut to 5 minutes, Sierra Research found that overall trip emissions increased by an average of 8%, and by about 20% when the warm-up time was cut to 2 minutes. They also found

that there was little or no ai r quality benefit from turning off a warmed-up vehicle if it was going to be started soon thereafter. Fo r example, they found that turning-off a warmed vehicle during a short (60 minute or less) shopping errand provides no CO air quality benefit. The emissions from a vehi cle left running were r oughly comparable to a

vehicle that was turned off and re -started at the end of the errand.

Anchorage I/M Evaluation Study (2006)

During the winter of 2005-2006, unde r contract with the MOA, Sierra Research conducted dynamometer emissions testing on over 200 vehicl es in order to quantify the CO emission reductions provided by I/M under “real world” conditions in Anchorage. 4 

### This testing simulated the driving behaviors and temperat ures experienced in the winter when CO concentrations are the highest. Vehicles were recruited from owners whose vehicles had recently failed an I/M test in one of Anchorage’s 80 privately-ope rated I/M testing facilities.

Vehicles were tested both before and after repair to determine the CO reduction provided by the repair.III.B.3-23 Adopted Insert Date 

### Some key findings:

 The I/M Program is projected to reduce CO emissions from the Anchorage vehicle fleet by approximately 12% in 2010.‡ This reduction is reasonably consistent w ith emissions reductions predicted by the EPA

model MOBILE6.

 The I/M Program is less effective in reduci ng cold start / warm-up idle emissions than reducing emissions from warm vehicles. CO reductions resulting from I/M repairs were more than three times greater during the warm or “running” phase of the Alaska Dr ive Cycle (ADC) than during the 10 minute idle period following a cold start.

 The I/M Program is less effective at reduc ing emissions from newer vehicles. Because newer vehicles emit less CO, I/M repa irs on these vehicles yield less benefit. On average, repairing a model year 1996 or newer vehicle that has failed I/M reduces CO by about 5 grams per mile. The repair of model year vehicles between 1990 and 1995 produces an average emission reduction ne arly five times greater, about 24 grams per mile.

‡ This is the estimated aggregate benefit of I/M. Based on emission testing of over 200 vehicles, Sierra

Research estimated that I/M reduction from a single cycle of I/M testing and repair to be 5.1% among the fleet subject to I/M. When the effects of multiple I/M te sting and repair cycles, seasonal waivers, and preinspection repairs were considered, th e overall CO reduction benefit for the Anchorage fleet as a whole was

estimated to be 12.1%.III.B.3-24 Adopted Insert Date 

### Influence of Meteorology on Ambient CO Concentrations

In Anchorage, CO concentrations are highe st during the months of November through February. As a high-latitude community, with long winter nights and weak daytime solar insolation, Anchorage frequently experiences strong and persis tent temperature inversions that trap CO close to the gr ound. In mid-winter, due to the short daytime period available for warming and the low sun angle, inversions often persist throughout the day. Inversion strengths as high as +5  F per 100 foot rise in elevation ha ve been measured. When winds are light, there is little verti cal or horizontal dispersion of pollutants. Poor dispersion conditions, combined with high emission rate s from motor vehicles started in cold temperatures create an environment particul arly conducive to deve loping elevated CO

concentrations.

The highest CO concentrations tend to occur on days with low wind speeds, clear or partly cloudy skies, and cold temperatures. Weathe r conditions during periods when the 8-hour average CO concentrations at the Turn again site were at or above the 98 th 

### percentile are summarized in Table III.B.3-3.§ .The averag e temperature during these periods was 4°F, with a range from -16  F to +18  F. The average wind speed was 2 miles per hour.

It should be noted that Local Climatologica l Data from the National Weather Service observatory at Point Campbell on the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport were used to prepare Table III.B.3-3. Point Ca mpbell is in the extreme western part of Anchorage, adjacent to Cook Inlet. Temp eratures there are often moderated by the surrounding water body. Temperatures in east Anchorage, away from the inlet, can

sometimes be 10 to 20  F lower than temperatures in west Anchorage. Wind speeds at Point Campbell can also be higher than areas to the east, particularly under a northerly wind regime. Thus, the wind speed and temperatures recorded at Point Campbell may not always accurately reflect conditions elsewhere in Anchorage.

§ CO data from Turnagain for the period October 1998 – December 2008 were analyzed to determine the 98 th
percentile 8-hour average concentratio n. This was computed to be 5.8 ppm. Table III.B.3-3 provides a summary of weather conditions during 8-hour periods when CO concentrations were equal to or higher than 5.8 ppm.III.B.3-25 Adopted Insert Date 

### Table III.B.3-3 Meteorological Conditions during Periods of High CO Concentrations at Turnagain Monitoring Station (8-hour Average >= 98 th 

### Percentile)

October 1998 – December 2008

Date 8-hour Average

(ppm) Day of Week Time of Day Temp
(  F) Wind Speed (mph) Sky

Cover*

12/16/1998 7.69 Wed 4 PM - 12 AM 2 2 CLR

12/24/1998 8.06 Thu 4 PM - 12 AM 6 0 FEW

1/4/1999 5.90 Mon 4 PM - 12 AM -1 4 CLR

1/6/1999 10.14 Wed 11 AM - 7 PM 2 2 FEW

2/7/1999 5.80 Sun 10 PM - 6 AM -9 2 FEW

2/8/1999 7.31 Mon 3 AM - 11 AM -9 7 SCT

2/11/1999 6.09 Thu 1 AM -9 AM -16 4 CLR

2/22/1999 6.50 Mon 7 PM - 3 AM 9 3 BKN

2/23/1999 7.61 Tues 4 AM - 12 PM 11 0 OVC

11/10/1999 5.93 Wed 4 AM - 12 PM 10 4 CLR

11/27/1999 7.16 Sat 5 PM - 1 AM 10 1 CLR

12/6/1999 7.24 Mon 6 AM - 2 PM 9 5 CLR

1/15/2000 7.21 Sat 7 PM - 3 AM 2 3 CLR

2/17/2001 6.13 Sat 10 PM - 6 AM 15 2 CLR

11/13/2001 6.13 Tues 7 PM - 3 AM 14 0 SCT

11/14/2001 7.74 Wed 4 AM - 12 PM 12 0 SCT

11/30/2001 5.90 Fri 9 PM - 5 AM 1 2 FEW

12/3/2001 6.30 Mon 8 AM - 4 PM -3 1 CLR

12/4/2001 5.95 Tues 8 AM - 4 PM 2 3 FEW

12/5/2001 7.23 Wed 7 AM - 3 PM 3 3 BKN

12/7/2001 6.28 Fri 5 PM - 1 AM -7 3 BKN

12/16/2001 9.78 Sun 12 PM -8 PM -8 5 SCT

12/18/2001 7.40 Tues 9 AM - 5 PM -6 3 SCT

1/25/2002 5.86 Fri 4 AM - 12 PM 2 5 CLR

2/6/2002 6.49 Wed 4 AM - 12 PM 18 0 SCT

12/5/2003 8.27 Fri 5 PM - 1 AM 8 2 CLR

1/1/2004 7.48 Thu 2 PM - 10 PM 4 0 SCT

1/3/2004 7.61 Sat 1 PM - 9 PM 11 2 CLR

1/4/2004 7.88 Sun 12 PM -8 PM 6 3 BKN

1/5/2004 8.11 Mon 10 AM - 6 PM 5 0 FOG

1/12/2004 5.87 Mon 5 PM - 1 AM 6 1 FEW

1/17/2006 6.09 Tues 6 AM - 2 PM 8 2 BKN

1/24/2006 6.11 Tues 4 AM - 12 PM -5 1 SCT

11/29/2006 6.53 Wed 8 AM - 4 PM 14 0 SCT

12/29/08 6.35 Mon 7 AM – 3 PM -2 0 FEW

* Sky Cover is the fraction amount of sky obscured. CLR = 0, FEW = 1/8 - 2/8, SCT = 3/8 – 4/8, BKN = 5/8 – 7/8, OVC = 8/8III.B.3-26 Adopted Insert Date 

### Diurnal Pattern in CO Concentrations

There is a distinct diurnal pa ttern in ambient CO concentra tion that corresp onds to driving patterns in the vicinity of a monitoring site. Residentia l neighborhood sites like Turnagain and Garden typically experience their highest concentrations in the mid-morning following the morning commute and accompanying vehicle warm-up idle. Figure III.B.3-4(a) shows

the 99 th 

### percentile hourly concentra tion measured at the Turnag ain and Garden sites during the winter CO seasons (October-March) in the period 2000-2008. The diurnal patterns observed at these two sites are very similar a nd implicate cold start and warm-up idling as a significant source of emissions at both sites. CO concentrations rise quickly in the early morning hours as commuters start their cars a nd leave for work from these two residential neighborhoods. They peak between 9 and 10 a.m. and drop off substantially during the late morning and early afternoon. Concentrations bu ild again somewhat in the evening hours but the evening peak is substantially lower than the morning peak.

Figure III.B.3-4(a)

Diurnal Variation in 99 th 

### Percentile Hourly CO Concentrations at Turnagain and Garden Monitoring Stations (2000-2008)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Hour of DayCO Concentration (ppm)

Turnagain Garden mid-morning peak corresponds with departure of commuters from neighborhoods



### The diurnal pattern in CO con centrations near major traffic arterials is different than residential areas. Figure III.B.3-4(b) shows the diurnal pattern at the Seward Highway station, located at the busy in tersection of the Seward Hi ghway and Benson Boulevard** Although a morning peak is present, the highest concentrations in the day correspond with the evening commute. Concentrations peak between 5 and 6 p.m. and decline slowly

** The Seward Highway Station was decommissioned on December 30, 2004. This discussion and Figure III.B.3-4(b) therefore are limited to data collected from 2000-2004.III.B.3-27 Adopted Insert Date 

### thereafter. Cold start emissions from even ing commuters leaving from downtown and midtown employment centers likely cont ribute to this evening peak.

Figure III.B.3-4(b)

Diurnal Variation in 99 th 

### Percentile Hourly CO Concentrations at Seward Highway Monitoring Stations (2000-2004)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Hour of DayCO Concentration (ppm) Seward Highway



### Role of Mechanical Turbulence from Ve hicle Traffic in Reducing Ambient CO Concentrations during Stagnation Conditions

As noted to earlier, the highest CO concentrations in Anchorage tend to occur in residential neighborhoods rather than near major roadways where vehicle traffi c volumes may be an order of magnitude greater. Although ve hicle cold starts result in higher per vehicle emission rates in residential areas, total CO emissions in commercial areas in midtown Anchorage are greater due to the shear vol ume of vehicles traveling along its major roadways. If the ambient CO concentration in a particular area were solely a function of the quantity of emission produced there, CO concen trations near major roadways in midtown Anchorage should be higher than residential ar eas. Ambient monitoring data indicate that

this is not the case.

In testimony given before a National Res earch Council committee assembled in 2001 to review the CO problem in Fairbanks, Anchor age and other cold climate areas, the MOA posed the hypothesis that mechanical mixing from high-speed vehicle traffic may reduce ambient CO concentrations near major tra ffic thoroughfares on severe stagnation days. 5


### Monitoring data support this hypothesis.III.B.3-28 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.3-5 compares CO concentrations by percentile at the Seward Highway and Turnagain stations. Traffic volumes are an order of magnitude greater near the Seward Highway station than the Turnagain station. On days when natural atmospheric mixing from wind and thermal convection is good, th e additional mixing provided by mechanical turbulence of vehicle traffic at Seward Highw ay is relatively unim portant. Under these conditions one would expect CO concentrations at Seward Highway to be higher than those at Turnagain because traffic and CO emissions are so much greater. Indeed, the lower quartile (P25) and median (P50) concentration are considerab ly higher at Seward than Turnagain. However, when a strong ground-ba sed temperature inversion and lack of wind create very poor natural at mospheric mixing, mechanical mixing from vehicle traffic appears to be a very important factor in mitig ating the build up of high CO concentrations. Under these extreme meteorological conditions concentrations at Turnagain are much higher than those at Seward Highway. The 99 th 

### percentile (P99) CO concentration at the Turnagain station is more than 40% hi gher than the Seward Highway station.

Figure III.B.3-5 Effect of Mechanical Mixing on CO Concentrations at Seward Highway and Turnagain Stations

0.9 1.4 2.4 4.7 7.1

1.6 2.1 2.8 4.0 4.9

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

P25 P50 P75 P95 P99

Percentile8-hr Avg CO Concentration (ppm)

Turnagain (low mechanical mixing) Seward Highway (high mechanical mixing) mechanical mixing from traffic becomes an important factor in mitigating the build up of CO at Seward Highay when natural
atmospheric mixing is limited

.

as natural mixing decreases, CO builds up



### .III.B.3-29 Adopted Insert Date 

### Carbon Monoxide Trends

In 1983, CO levels in Anchorage exceeded th e NAAQS at one or more monitoring sites on 53 days. During midwinter months in the ea rly 1980’s, a violation of the NAAQS was measured roughly one-in-four da ys. However CO concentrati ons have fallen dramatically over the past twenty years. No violati ons have been measured since 1996. Single exceedances of the NAAQS were measured in 1998, 1999 and 2001 but these are not considered violations because the NAAQS allo ws up to one exceedance per calendar year. No exceedances were measured in 1995, 1997, 2000, or between 2002 and 2008.

The highest and second highest 8- hour averages for five Anc horage monitoring stations are tabulated by year, 1980 – 2008, in Table III.B .3-5. The number of days exceeding the NAAQS at each station is also tabulated. Dramatic declines in CO have occurred in Anchorage over the past three decades.

Data from the 7 th 

### & C Street, Jewel Lake and Bowman, and 8 th 

### and L stations are not tabulated. Monitoring at 7 th 

### & C was discontinued in 1995 because concentrations there

were the lowest in the network. The Jewel La ke station went into operation in October 2002

and was discontinued in March 2004 because co ncentrations measured there were lower than the other monitors operating in the networ k. The Bowman station in South Anchorage was operated from January 2006 through March 2007. It was discontinued because it too

had low CO concentrations. The 8 th 

### and L station has only been in operations since October

2007.

The trend in the second highest 8-hour average concentration or second maximum measured in each calendar year is often used to measur e improvements in CO air quality and progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. The second maximum is statistically more robust (i.e., less prone to year-to-year fluctuation) than the first maximum, making it easier to discern long-term air quality trends. The second maxi mum is also a direct measure of compliance with the NAAQS. A community is considered to be in compliance if the second maximum at all monitoring stations is below 9.5 ppm.III.B.3-30 Adopted Insert Date Table III.B.3-5

Summary of CO Data from Anchorage Monitoring Stations (1980 –2008)

Benson (microscale) 2902 Spenard Road Garden (neighborhood)

3000 E 16 th Street Sand Lake (neighborhood) 3426 Raspberry

Road Seward (microscale)

3002 New Seward Highway Turnagain (neighborhood) 3201 Turnagain

Street

Year max 2 nd

max # days

 9.5 max 2 nd

max # days

 9.5 max 2nd

max # days

 9.5 Max 2nd

max # days

 9.5 max 2 nd

max # days

 9.5

1980 27.4 26.3 39 17.1 16.8 21 14.0 14.0 6 -- -- -- -- -- --

1981 17.4 16.2 33 12.6 11.2 7 12.6 11.3 5 -- -- -- -- -- --

1982 21.6 18.1 30 15.6 13.9 14 16.6 11.9 3 -- -- -- -- -- --

1983 20.2 16.0 48 19.6 18.0 24 11.5 11.4 7 -- -- -- -- -- --

1984 17.3 17.1 27 13.0 12.9 6 12.6 11.6 5 -- -- -- -- -- --

1985 12.6 12.4 9 12.7 12.2 4 9.2 8.9 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

1986 12.4 11.7 5 10.5 8.8 1 8.1 7.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

1987 9.8 8.6 1 10.7 9.5 1 8.1 6.3 0 -- -- -- -- -- --

1988 11.4 10.4 3 11.8 10.5 2 8.5 8.4 0 12.3 11.8 9 -- -- --

1989 9.8 9.6 2 14.0 13.1 2 10.0 8.4 1 14.0 12.2 5 -- -- --

1990 9.5 9.4 1 9.8 9.0 1 8.8 8.0 0 13.0 11.6 11 -- -- --

1991 9.5 8.1 0 8.9 8.4 0 6.7 6.4 0 11.5 9.8 3 -- -- --

1992 9.0 8.8 0 10.9 10.8 2 7.1 7.0 0 10.4 9.5 2 -- -- --

1993 8.2 7.6 0 10.0 9.7 2 8.8 5.1 0 10.4 9.9 2 -- -- --

1994 8.4 8.3 0 9.4 8.6 0 5.8 5.7 0 11.3 11.0 2 -- -- --

1995 9.2 7.6 0 8.4 7.4 0 6.7 6.3 0 9.0 8.4 0 -- -- --

1996 11.0 9.6 3 8.9 8.7 0 7.7 6.9 0 10.8 10.5 3 -- -- --

1997 7.1 6.8 0 7.3 7.1 0 5.9 4.9 0 7.3 7.0 0 -- -- --

1998 9.3 8.2 0 9.5 8.4 1 -- -- -- 9.4 7.9 0 8.1* 7.7* 0*

1999 6.6 5.9 0 8.2 7.8 0 -- -- -- 7.5 6.5 0 10.1 7.6 1

2000 5.2 4.7 0 5.8 5.4 0 -- -- -- 5.2 4.8 0 7.2 5.5 0

2001 6.2 5.7 6.1 5.7 0 -- -- -- 5.4 5.2 0 9.8 7.7 1

2002 -- -- -- 4.7 4.6 0 -- -- -- 5.4 4.7 0 6.4 5.8 0

2003 -- -- -- 6.1 5.7 0 -- -- -- 6.2 5.4 0 8.3 6.7 0

2004 -- -- -- 6.8 6.4 0 -- -- -- 5.8 5.5 0 8.1 7.9 0

2005 -- -- -- 4.8 4.8 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.7 4.6 0

2006 -- -- -- 5.1 4.3 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.5 6.1 0

2007 -- -- -- 4.0 3.5 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.5 5.3 0

2008 -- -- -- 4.0 3.7 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.3 5.4 0

* Incomplete year of data. In 1998 Turnagain station began operations in mid-October.III.B.3-31 Adopted Insert Date 

### Annual second maximum concentra tions recorded from these five sites are plotted in Figures III.B.3-6. Available data from 1980-2008 are plotted. The Garden station, located in an east Anchorage residential area provides the longest data record in the network. CO

concentrations at Garden d eclined by 76% during this 29 year period. Benson, Sand Lake and Seward Highway experienced similar declines.

Figure III.B.3-6

Trend in 2nd Maximum 8-hour CO Concentration at Anchorage CO Monitoring Stations 1980 - 2008

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005CO (ppm) Garden

Benson

Seward

Turnagain

Sand Lake

CO NAAQSIII.B.3-32 Adopted Insert Date 

### Population Growth

Located in a state that has been historically subject to short-term cy cles of economic booms and recessions, the Anchorage area has experien ced a slowing, but stable pattern of longterm population growth in recent years. Be tween 1950 and 1990 the average rate of growth was nearly 5,000 persons per year. Growth between 1990 and 2008 slowed to about 3,500 per year. Growth over the next twenty years is expected to furthe r slow to about 2,900 per year, slightly under 1% per annum. Figure III.B.3-7 depicts hist oric and projected population growth in the Muni cipality of Anchorage.††

Figure III.B.3-7 Population Growth and Projected Gr owth and in Anchorage, Alaska

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030population

Historical data

AK Dept of Labor Projection

Sources: U.S. Census (1950 -2000), Alaska Department of Labor (projections 2010 – 2030)

†† Figure III.B.3-7 includes population outside the Anchor age bowl but within the Municipality of Anchorage. Thus, the Eagle River-Chugiak and Girdwood areas are included.III.B.4-33 Adopted Insert date 

### III.B.4. Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Program

Although emission projections are used to track reasonable further progress (RFP), it is actual ambient air quality monito ring data that determine whethe r or not an area meets the NAAQS. The difficulty with using ambient mo nitoring data to assess trends is the fluctuation in pollution concentrations caused by daily, weekly, and y early variations in meteorological conditions, traffic levels, and ot her factors. However, it is important to monitor and compare ambient air quality concentr ations 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)) re quires that each implementa tion plan submitted to EPA provide for the establishment and operation of "appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to mon itor, compile, and analyze da ta on ambient air quality."

The Anchorage CO monitoring network is curren tly comprised of four sampling stations. The MOA uses TECO48 CO analyzers at each st ation (Figure III.B.4-1). These instruments meet all specifications required by the EPA for ambient CO monito ring and are designated by the EPA as a "referen ce 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 weekda y. 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 esta blished in federal regulations, EPA guidance

and instrument manufacturer recommendations. Third party instrument performance audits are conducted by EPA an d/or ADEC quarterly.III.B.4-34 Adopted Insert date 

### The locations of the stations in the CO monito ring network are described in Table III.B.4-1. The purpose of this network is to characteri ze the range of CO e xposures experienced by Anchorage residents. By analyzing pollution concentration trends over time, CO monitoring

stations can also serve to a ssess the effectiveness of stra tegies designed to reduce air pollution emissions and improve air quality. Each monitoring station was selected in accordance with guidelines established by the EP A. As more has been learned about the nature of the CO problem in Anchorage, mo re emphasis has been pl aced 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 re corded 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. T hus far, concentrati ons appear to be low relative to other active sites (i.e., Turnagain, Garden) in the network.

8 th 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 6 th 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 r ecorded exceedances of the NAAQS in the late 1970’s, 1980’s and early 1990’s. The last ex ceedance 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.III.B.4-35 Adopted Insert date 

### 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 nece ssary to monitor, compile, a nd analyze data on ambient air quality....” The MOA is committed to the cont inued operation of this network. Three saturation monitoring studies have been conduc ted by the MOA to assess the adequacy of the monitoring network. The 1997-98 saturation st udy resulted in the establishment of the Turnagain Station in west Anchorage. Any ch anges 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 Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.5-37 Adopted Insert Date 

### III.B.5 Transportation Control Strategies

Control Measures Implemented as a Cons equence of the 2004 Maintenance Plan

This section discusses the control measures implemented in fulfillment of commitments of the maintenance plan approved by the EP A in 2004 and previous attainment and maintenance plans. The Anchorage 2004 mainte nance plan included I/ M, the Share-A-Ride and Vanpool programs, and public awareness and incentive programs that encourage the use of engine block heaters to reduce cold start CO emissions.

The current status of these programs is describe d in the sections belo w. The CO reductions from these programs were estimated for calendar year 2007 using a MOBILE6-based modeling approach.

Vehicle Emissions I/M Program

Program Description - The MOA I/M program was implemented in July 1985 as a primary

control measure in the 1982 air quality attainment plan. It has been included in all subsequent attainment and maintenance plans approved by the EPA including the maintenance plan approved in 2004. The MOA administers the program in cooperation with the ADEC. The basic design includes a decentrali zed test and repair program with both idle and 2500 rpm tests for model year vehicl es 1968-1995 and OBDII testing for 1996 and newer vehicles. The current program requires bi ennial testing but exempts new vehicles for the first four years af ter purchase.‡‡ According to an independent evaluation by Sierra Research in 2001, the Anchorage I/M program was rated among the best decentralized programs in the country. 6



### Cut points

- CO emission cut points in Anchorage ar e generally more stringent than the federal warranty limit of 1.2%. Cut points by vehicle category, as de fined in Table 1 of AAC52.037(b),are:

Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles (LDGV1 and LDGV2)

Idle 2500 RPM

1968-1971 5.0% 4.0%

1972-1974 4.0% 3.0%

1975-1980 2.0% 2.0%

1981-1993 1.0% 1.0%

1994 and newer 0.5% 0.5%

Light Duty Gasoline Trucks (LDGT1 and LDGT2)

Idle 2500 RPM

1968-1972 5.0% 4.0%

1973-1978 4.0% 3.0%

1979-1983 2.0% 2.0%

1984-1993 1.0% 1.0%

1994 and newer 0.5% 0.5%

‡‡ The I/M Program was modified slightly in January 2006 to expand the new car I/M testing exemption from two years to four years. The Municipality and the Stat e submitted SIP revisions supporting the four-year test exemption to the EPA in 2006.III.B.5-38 Adopted Insert Date 

### Anchorage has also implemented a hydrocar bon cut point of 220 ppm for 1994 and newer

vehicles.

Test Equipment and Procedures

- Beginning in January 2000, BAR 90 test analyzer systems in the MOA were replaced with emission insp ection systems with BAR97-grade hardware. Although these systems do not pe rform functional gas cap or loaded mode testing, the BAR97 upgrade provides signifi cant improvements in measurement accuracy particularly at lower concentrations of CO. The new system s include dilution correction capability that reduces the possibility of a vehicle being fa lsely passed due to accidental or intentional dilution of the exhaust gas being analyzed. The new emission inspection system also

includes an enhanced Internet-based comm unications system and Vehicle Information Database (VID) that facilitates the proper iden tification of the vehicl e being tested. This system also provides for on-line oversight and scrutiny of the mechanics conducting emission tests. Presumably, these upgrades have resulted in an overall improvement in the identification of vehicles requi ring repair, improved the qualit y of the emission tests, and consequently reduced CO emissions. In addition, mandatory OBDII testing was implemented on July 1, 2001, ahead of the EPA mandated implementation date.

Enforcement - Working with ADEC, the MOA has implemented a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of enforcement against program evaders. ADEC has conducted parking lot surveys in Anchorage 7 

### that suggest that up to 10% of the vehicles operating in Anchorage could be evading I/M requirements. In Janua ry 2000, in cooperation with ADEC, the MOA implemented a windshield sticke r program that allows for easier and more obvious identification of vehicles that may be evading I/M requirements. The windshield sticker program supplements the registration denial program already in place. The windshield sticker program is di scussed in 18 AAC 52.020 and 18 AAC 52.025.

Enhancements in Mechanic Training and Certification - Mechanic training and certification has been a part of the MOA I/M program since its inception. I/M mechanics are required to complete classroom and hands-on training and pass a test prior to being certified to perform tests in the MOA program. More recently, the MOA worked in consultation with ADEC to implement an additional technician training and certification progr am (TTC). TTC was included as a contingency measure in the MOA element of the SIP. Violations in 1996 triggered this measure. The MOA worked w ith ADEC to develop a comprehensive 40-hour training course.

Estimated CO Reduction – A MOBILE6-based method was used to model the estimated CO

reductions from I/M in 2007. Modeled benefits of the MOA program exceed the basic I/M performance standard stipulat ed in the CAAA. In 2007, the I/M program reduced area-wide CO emissions in Anchorage by an estimated 11.6 tons per day, about 15% of total vehicle emissions. Attributes of the MOA progr am are summarized in Table III.B.5-1.III.B.5-39 Adopted Insert Date Table III.B.5-1

Attributes of Anchorage I/M Program in 2007

Program Element Year 2007 Anchorage Program

Network type Decentralized

Start date July 1, 1985

Inspection frequency Biennial, exem ption for newest 4 model years

Model year coverage 1968 and newer

Vehicle type coverage* LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, HDGV

Test type Two-speed idle (1995 and older) OBDII (1996 and newer)

Emission cut points More stringent than federal limits

Under hood inspection** Comprehensive visual and functional checks

Pre-1981 stringency 23%

Waiver rate 0%

Compliance rate 90%

Assumed program effectiveness (relative to centralized) 85%

% Reduction in vehicle emissions (2007) 14.8%

Estimated CO Reduction in Year 2007 11.6 tons per day

* LDGV = light-duty gasoline vehicles, LDGT = light-duty gasoline trucks, HDGV = heavy-duty gasoline

trucks.

** Visual and functional tests are not required for 1968-74 model year vehicles. For 1996 and newer vehicles, visual and functional tests are limited to catalyst and oxygen sensor inspection. 1975-1995 vehicles receive a comprehensive visual and functional test.



### Share-A-Ride Program

Program Description – The Anchorage Share-A-Ride Program provides carpool and vanpool services to individuals travelling within or commuting to Anchorage. Carpooling was first identified as a CO control strategy in the 1982 MOA air quality plan. The vanpool program began in 1995. The Share-A-Ride Program wa s included in the 2004 CO Maintenance Plan as primary control measure. Carpooling and vanpooling programs are supported with Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality funding fr om the Federal Highway Administration.

In 2007, there were 365 individual s and 181 carpools actively partic ipating in the program. The vanpool program has experienced substantial growth since its incep tion and there is an on-going demand for more vanpools especially among long distance commuters living outside of Anchorage in the Matanuska Sus itna Valley, Eagle River-Chugiak and Girdwood. Table III.B.5-2 shows the growth that has o ccurred in the vanpool program over the last decade. In 2007 there were 42 vanpools and 589 vanpool riders; by 2008 this number had increased by another 20%. 8III.B.5-40 Adopted Insert Date Table III.B.5-2

Vanpool Program Participation (1996-2008)

Year Number of Vanpools Number of Vanpoolers

1996 9 126

1997 10 137

1998 11 151

1999 14 184

2000 18 231

2001 18 260

2002 21 270

2003 23 323

2004 24 363

2005 24 375

2006 41 569

2007 42 589

2008 52 810



### Estimated CO Reduction – In 2007, based on program statistics, the carpooling and vanpooling components of the Share-A-Ride pr ogram eliminated approximately 800 cold starts and 10,000 miles of trav el per day from the Anchorage roadway network. This

resulted in an estimated CO reduction in the Anchorage maintenance area of approximately 0.25tons per day or about 0.3% of motor vehicle emissions.

Promotion of Engine Block Heater Use Prior to Vehicle Cold Starts

Program Description - Testing performed as part of the Alaska Cold Start and Idle Emission Study during the winters of 1998-99 and 2000-2001 s howed that the use of an engine block heater reduced CO emissions by an average of 57% over the course of a 10-minute cold start

and idle. 9 

### Survey data show that over three-qua rters of the vehicles in the MOA are equipped with block heaters. 10 

### Because cold starts and warm-up idling make up such a large portion of Anchorage’s CO emi ssions, particularly in reside ntial neighborhoods, significant

reductions could be realized if motorists were convinced to use their engine block heaters prior to their morning commute.

Beginning with the winter of 1999-2000, televi sion commercials, radio advertising, and newspaper inserts have been used to promote the advantages of usi ng a block heater. In addition to reducing air pollution, using a block heater results in easier start-ups, reduced engine wear-and-tear, and a shor ter time for the heater and defr oster to work. All of these advantages have been emphasized in campaigns over the past several winters. Beginning in the winter of 2004, the MOA initiated the Plug@20 public awareness campaign, encouraging vehicle owners to plug-in thei r block heaters whenever temperatures drop below 20 oF. Television, radio, and print medi a along with targeted a dvertising have been employed. Plug@20 is now highly rec ognizable among Anchorage residents.

In addition, the MOA and ADEC have provided a dditional incentives to encourage residents to plug-in. Since the winter of 1999-2000, n early 10,000 programmable electrical timers, designed to turn block heater s on two-to-three hours prior to the morning commute, haveIII.B.5-41 Adopted Insert Date 

### been distributed free-of-charge to Anchorage re sidents. In addition, beginning in the winter of 2002-2003, and continuing on for the four fo llowing winters, residents who owned

vehicles without block heaters could have them installed for a nominal charge of $25. By the time this program ended in December 2006, over 8,000 block heaters had been installed in Anchorage vehicles.

Annual telephone surveys have been conducted at the conclusion of each winter since 2000

to assess the effectiveness of the block h eater promotion and incentive programs. These surveys suggest that the public awareness and incentive programs have had a positive effect on block heater usage. Residents who have taken advantage of the programmable timers

and/or block heater installations have a greater inclination to plug-in. Survey data suggest that, even for those who have not received incenti ves, plug-in rates have increased as a result of TV, radio and prin t media advertising.

Estimated CO Reduction – Annual telephone survey data indicate that over 70% of respondents saw or heard the television or radi o ads. Survey results suggest that plug-in

rates have doubled from about 10% from Oc tober 1999 to about 20% in 2007. Survey data indicate that plug-in rates am ong those who have received either a free timer or subsidized block heater installations approach 50% when temperatures fall to 10oF or colder.

In 2007, on an area-wide basis, the increase in plug-in rates resulting from incentives and promotions provided an estimated CO reduction of about 0.5 tons per day. This amounts to

a 0.6% reduction in area-wide vehicle emissions. The impact of block heater promotion and

incentives in residential areas is likely greater because cold start emissions are a more significant part of total emissions. In neighbor hoods with large numbers of vehicles parked outside, increases in block heater plug-in rate s may play a significan t role in reducing CO emissions from the morning commute. Some of the highest CO concentrations in Anchorage are experienced in these ne ighborhoods on cold winter mornings.

Combined Impact of Control Programs on Base Year 2007 CO Emissions

In the year 2007, the combined reduction of the three CO c ontrol programs described above was 12.3 tons per day. These programs reduced daily motor vehicle CO emissions from an estimated 79.4 tons per day to 67.1 tons per day. Reductions are su mmarized in Table

III.B.5-3

Table III.B.5-3

Combined Reduction from Locally Implemented CO Control Programs in Anchorage (2007)

Control Program Estimated CO

Reduction (tons per day)

I/M Program 11.61

Share-A-Ride Program (carpool and vanpool) 0.25

Engine Block Heater Promotion 0.49*

Cumulative Benefit of Control Measures 12.3

% Reduction in Motor Vehicle Emissions 15.5%

* This is the estimated incremental benefit of an increased plug-in rate resulting from block heater promotion campaign and incentives. The total benefit of all block heater use is estimated to be about one ton per day.III.B.5-42 Adopted Insert Date 

### Stationary Source Program

The CAAA section 172 (c) requirements fo r nonattainment areas do not apply to maintenance areas. The requirements for reas onable further progress, identification of

certain emissions increases and other measures needed for attainment do not apply, because these measures only have meaning for area s not attaining the standard. Under this maintenance plan, the requirements of CAAA Part D, New Source Review (NSR) no longer apply as they did under nonattainment. Upon re designation to maintenance, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program replaces the NSR program requirements for major stationary sources. Section 302 of the CAAA (42 U.S. C. 7602) defines a major stationary source as any stationa ry facility or source of air po llutants that directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year of any pollutant.

Given the fifteen year timeframe evaluated in this maintenance plan, a growth allowance has been applied to stationary source emissions. Stationary source emissions increase in proportion to projected population growth. This is a conser vative assumption; no future improvements in CO emission control technol ogy for these sources have been assumed.

Permits for construction and operation of new or modified major stati onary sources within the maintenance area must be approved through the PSD program. Within the MOA, ADEC is responsible for issuing construction and Title V operating permits. ADEC has incorporated the requirements for PSD in 18 AAC 50, Article 3.III.B.5-43 Adopted Insert Date 

### Primary Control Measure Commitments for the 2008 – 2023 Maintenance Plan Period

Section III B.6 contains an analysis of An chorage maintenance prospects during the 2008- 2023 maintenance plan period. The most signi ficant revision in this plan from the maintenance plan approved by the EPA in 2004 is the extension of the current four-year I/M testing exemption for new cars to six years. Extending the new car exemption will have a minor impact on the CO emission reducti ons provided by the program. MOBILE6 modeling suggests that motor vehicle CO emi ssions will increase by less than one ton per day (less than 2%) as cons equence of the extension.

Under this Maintenance Plan, the probability of complying with the NAAQS is estimated to be 99% or higher each year during the peri od 2008-2023. In other words, even with the expanded new car I/M exemption, there is less than a 1-in-100 chan ce of violating the standard in any year.

Primary CO Control Measures

Four primary control measures will be impl emented during the 2008-2023 maintenance plan period. These include I/M, air quality public awareness, transit marketing, and the ridesharing and vanpooling program. Because all of these programs rely on voluntary participation by the public in order to reali ze emission reductions, the CO reduction benefits of these programs were ignored in the analysis of maintenance prospe cts discussed later in Section III.B.6.§§

The status of these four programs in th e 2008-2023 maintenance planning period is

discussed in more detail below.

I/M

I/M has been a key CO reduction strategy in Anchorage since 1985 and it will continue as primary measure with some minor modificati ons. In July 2008, the Anchorage Assembly passed AO 2008-84(S) which modified the I/M Program by extending the new car testing exemption from four to six years beginning January 2010. The ordinance also provided a testing exemption for vehicles with histor ic and classic license plates. Annually, approximately 17,000 vehicles will be newly exem pted from I/M testing as a result of the

ordinance.*** This amounts to about 18% of the vehicle fleet currently subject to I/M testing requirements. Although a significant numbe r of vehicles will be exempt from testing beginning in 2009, the preponderance of these vehi cles will be newer, mostly lower mileage vehicles, with low I/M fail rates. Because the fail rate among these vehi cles is low relative to the rest of the fleet subject to I/M, fewer undergo I/M repa irs. Thus, on a per vehicle basis, the CO reduction benefit of testing these vehicles is relatively low. In 2006, the I/M fail rate among vehicles four years of age wa s about 3%. Figure III.B.5-1 shows that, in general, the fail rate grows progressively with ag e. By the time vehicles reach ten years of age the fail rate has climbed above 12% and by twenty years of age the fail rate is above

30%.

§§ Generally speaking, the benefits of voluntary strategies are less certain. EPA guidance recommends excluding anticipated pollutant reductions from volunt ary measures when analyzing prospects for compliance with the NAAQS. The EPA guidance regarding voluntary measures can be found in Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a SIP, U.S. EPA, September 2004. *** A projected 16,500 of those newly exempted will be vehicles between four and six years of age. The exemption of vehicles with classic and historic plates is expected to affect 500 or fewer vehicles.III.B.5-44 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.5-1 I/M Fail Rate vs. Vehicle Age in 2006

2.9% 5.4% 7.8% 12.6% 16.0%

13.7% 16.7% 24.0% 32.5% 38.6%

33.8% 38.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 25+

Age of Vehicle% Failing I/M



### The effect of expanding the new car exemption to six years and exempting vehicles with historic and classic plates can be modeled using MOBILE6. The effect of expanding these test exemptions on the overall effectiveness of I/M is small. For example, in 2011, the amount of CO reduced by I/M if the current program were con tinued with the current fouryear exemption is projected to be 11.0 tons per day. With the new expanded testing exemptions, the amount reduced is projected to be 10.2 tons per day. In other words, CO emissions are expected to increase by about 0.8 tons per day in 2011 as a result of the new exemptions.

Air Quality Public Awareness

Air quality public awareness was a key ai r quality improvement strategy and primary measure of the 2004 maintenance plan and this effort will continue. Survey data suggest that public awareness campaign efforts over the past eight years have resulted in measureable changes in engine block heater plug-in rates among Anchorage motorists. Air quality public awareness is supported by congest ion mitigation / air qua lity funds from the Federal Highway Administration. Future funding is programmed in the 2006-2009 Anchorage Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and funding is expected to be included in a new TIP slated for adoption in 2009 that will cover the period 2010-2013. The public awareness effort is expected to broa den into other areas wh ere changes in public behavior can result in impr ovements in CO air quality. Some of these areas include:

 Promotion of alternatives to the single o ccupancy vehicle such as bicycling, walking, public transit, car and vanpooling, teleco mmuting, and electronic meetings and conferencing.†††

††† One important factor in the successful promotion of bicycling, walking and transit is providing safe and accessible routes for pedestrians and cyclists. This mean s making routes available that minimize conflicts with motor vehicle traffic and clearing snow promptly in the winter. Safe routes to school are particularly important for “school age” pedestrians and bicyclists. A significan t number of vehicle trips could be eliminated if more students walked, biked or took the bus to school instead of being dropped off by parents.III.B.5-45 Adopted Insert Date 

###  Encouraging motorists to combine trips to re duce travel and the num ber of cold starts (i.e., promote trip chaining).

 Increasing public awareness with regard to the importance of regular vehicle maintenance in reducing ai r pollution and improving fuel economy. Simple

maintenance checks such as air filter re placement, oil changes, and proper tire inflation can make a big difference.

Transit Marketing

Anchorage’s public transit system, People M over, receives congestion mitigation / air quality (CMAQ) funding from the Federal Highway Administrati on to advertise and promote its service in Anchorage. The An chorage TIP includes funding through 2009 for transit promotion. Figure III.B.5-2 shows transi t ridership has increased significantly over the past several years. 11 

### Although many factors have proba bly contributed to increased ridership, on-going marketing is an essential pa rt of the continued gr owth of People Mover ridership. A transit marketing effort will continue, now as a committed primary measure in

this Maintenance Plan.

Figure III.B.5-2 Weekday People Mover Bus Ridership

10,675 11,395 11,921 13,498 13,401 13,564 14,297

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Weekday Ridership



### In 1998, as a direct result of its transit promotion efforts, People Mover reached an agreement with the University of Alaska that provides free bus service (called U-Pass) for

their students and staff. Since that time Alas ka Pacific University, Charter College have joined in with a faculty and staff pass program and most recently Conoco Phillips has joined the U-Pass program for all their Anchorage-based employees. Efforts to reach similar agreements with other employers and institutions are on-going. 12III.B.5-46 Adopted Insert Date 

### Carpooling and Vanpooling

The 2004 maintenance plan committed to implementing a carpooling and vanpooling program in Anchorage. Support for Anchor age’s Share-A-Ride Program will continue through the 2008-2023 maintenance plan period. As noted earlier in this section, the vanpooling program has experienced considerable growth in the past decade and demand for new service is on-going. CMAQ funds for s upport of the Share-A-Ride Program are programmed through 2009 in the Anchorage TIP.

Estimated CO Reduction Benefit from Impl ementation of Primary Measures 2008-2023

The I/M Program is projected to reduce moto r vehicle CO emissions by roughly 15% during the 2008-2023. However, because the motor vehicl e fleet is expected to grow progressively cleaner over time, the absolute magnitude of emission reduction provided by I/M drops from about 10.2 tons per day in 2011 to 8.8 tons per day in 2023.

As noted earlier, because of the voluntary nature of the air quality public awareness, transit marketing and the Share-A-Ride programs, the CO reductions anticipated from these three measures are ignored in the assessment of future probabi lity of compliance with the NAAQS. Nevertheless, survey data suggest that these meas ures are currently providing tangible CO reductions in Anchorage and they have the potential to provide additional

reductions in the future. The current overall combined benefit of these three measures is estimated to be in the range of one ton per day CO reduced.

Ancillary Benefits of Primary Measures

Although reducing CO emissions has been a prime focus in Anchorage for three decades, there is growing realization of the need to reduce other air po llutants. Monitoring data in Anchorage suggest that ambient concentra tions of benzene, a known human carcinogen associated with leukemia, are among the highest in the U.S. Alaska gasoline contains more

benzene than most of the U.S. and motor vehicl es are a significant source of this toxic air pollutant in Anchorage. Studies conducted in Fairbanks by Sierra Research suggest that strategies aimed at reducing CO also reduce benzene. Like CO, emissions of hydrocarbons such as benzene tend to be highest during co ld start and warm-up idle when engines are cold. Thus, using an engine bl ock heater prior to a cold star t not only reduces CO emissions

but also benzene and other air toxics. 13



### Greenhouse gas emissions are of growing con cern globally and local ly. Besides being a source of CO, motor vehicles are a significant source of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) and other greenhouse gas emissions. This plan supports the use of tran sit, carpooling and vanpooling, telecommuting, walking, bicycling and other alternatives to th e single occupancy vehicle. Besides reducing CO emissions, these strategies provide CO 2 

### emission reduction benefits. As these strategies become more successful, CO 2 

### reductions increase.

This plan recognizes the importance of addre ssing other air pollutants even if they are unrelated to CO emissions. The Municipality of Anchorage is committed to examining new technlogies that lead to reduction of air pollutant em issions including CO 2 

### and diesel particulate. The Muncipality is examining the purchase of of high fuel economy vehicles, including hybrid electrics , for its own fleet.III.B.5-47 Adopted Insert Date 

### Consistency with Other Municipal Plans and Programs

The air quality improvement strategies outlined in the CO Maintenance Plan rely in large part on reducing the dependence on the single occupancy vehicle by e nhancing alternative transportation modes such as transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bi cycling and walking. This strategy is consistent with many other plan s and programs adopted by the Municipality.

One of the goals of the Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is to “provide a transportation system that provides viable transporation choices among various modes.” Objectives include the “development of a safe network of trails and sidewalks that provide year-round, reasonable access to work, school s, parks, services, and the natural environment.” Meeting these objectives w ill make walking, cycling and transit more attractive, reduce single occupancy vehicle use and help decrease air pollution, including CO. The LRTP also recognizes the need fo r transit service improvements and endorses

recommendations included in The People Mover Blueprint: A Plan to Restructure the Anchorage Transit System. Additional buses and stable fundi ng will be necessary to attain the goals and objectives identified in the route restructuring plan.

The Municipality is in the process of developi ng a plan that will address specific needs as related to pedestrian and bicycle travel. This Non-Motorized Plan was identified in the LRTP as a task to be completed. The fi rst chapter of the Non-Motorized Plan, the Pedestrian Plan was adopted by the Municipa lity in October 2007. The Pedestrian Plan establishes a 20 year framework for improveme nts to enhance the pedestrian environment and increase opportunities to choose walking as a mode of transportation. The Pedestrian Plan features a list of over 300 capital projects in the Municipality that will create safer and more pleasant places to walk. The Municipality is currently at work on the next chapter of the Non-Motorized Plan, the Bicycle Plan. Th is Bicycle Plan will identify a network of facilities to be used by commuter cyclists to na vigate Anchorage more safely. Both of these plans should identify ways for Anchorage to develop the infrastructure necessary to make walking and bicycling more attractive as a means to get to work, school and shopping.Adopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.6-51 Adopted Insert Date 

### III.B.6 Modeling and Projections

EPA, based on its regulatory guidance, prefer s to use dispersion m odeling techniques to

demonstrate attainment and maintenance of ai r quality standards in State Implementation Plans. In May of 2002, representatives from the Municipality of Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation met with EPA Region 10 staff to discu ss the modeling techniques and a pproaches to be used in maintenance demonstrations in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Meeting pa rticipants reviewed the results of an area wide modeling feasibility analysis performed by a consultant on behalf

of ADEC and MOA 14 

### , and concluded that currently avai lable area wide dispersion models lack the capability to adequately address the meteorolog ical extremes encountered in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Also, the existing meteorological databa se in Anchorage and Fairbanks may not have the micro-scale mete orological parameters needed for adequate model performance for regulatory purposes. Th erefore, after evaluati ng several options, the participants settled on the use of a probabilistic roll-forward approach in the maintenance

demonstration.

As general guidance, EPA staff has stated that this maintenance demonstration should show a 90% or greater probability of comply ing with the NAAQS each year during the maintenance planning period.

Probabilistic Roll-Forward Modeling / Maintenance Demonstration

Because the Turnagain site exhibits the hi ghest CO concentrations in the monitoring network, a regression analysis of observed se cond 8-hour maximum CO concentrations at this site was performed. § 

### Using commonly accepted statistical techniques, the CO regression line and upper-bound 90 th 

### percentile prediction interv al were computed. In theory, 90% of observed second maximum concen trations should fall below this interval. The upper-bound 90 th 

### percentile prediction interval va lues for 2007 serves as the design value (DV).

A nine square kilometer area surrounding th e Turnagain site was identified and the

emissions within this area we re inventoried for base year 2007 and projected through 2023. (See Figure III.B.3-1 (a)) Conventional statis tical methods were used to estimate the probability of complying with the NAAQS in the year 2007, the base year for the analysis. The “roll forward” technique, used in the prev ious maintenance demonstration, was used to estimate probability of complying with the standa rd in future years. This technique relies on CO emissions projections for years 2008 throug h 2023 to help estimate the probability of complying with the NAAQS during this time pe riod. A more detailed description of the methodology used in this analysis can be found in the Appendix to Section III.B.6.

§ Although not shown here, a similar analysis was also performed on data from the Garden station. Because Garden has lower CO concentrations than Turnagain, the computed probability of complying with the NAAQS is substantially higher at Garden than Turnagain. Thus, Turnagain provides a more rigorous analysis with regards to the likelihood of a future violation.III.B.6-52 Adopted Insert Date 

### The probabilistic roll-forward proced ure consists of 5 basic steps:

1. Compute the base year 2007 DV using the 90 th 

### percentile prediction interval from Turnagain station CO data.

2. Compile the 2007 base year CO inventory and determine the quantity of emissions generated in the nine square kilometer area surrounding the Turnagain monitoring station during a 24-hour “desi gn day.” A design day is de fined as a winter weekday when a CO violation is most likely to o ccur. Emission modeling assumptions (i.e. ambient temperature, traffic activity, et c.) reflect conditions on the design day.

3. Using the roll-forward technique, the computed 2007 DV and assumed background CO concentration, determine the emission re duction required to achieve attainment or, conversely, the increase in emissions that can occur and still maintain attainment of the NAAQS at Turnagain.

4. Using the roll-forward equati on, compute the quantity of emissions that can be generated within the Turnagain site ar ea on a design day and still remain in compliance with the NAAQS.

5. Using the best available data and assu mptions regarding growth in population, vehicle miles traveled and trip starts within the nine kilometer square area surrounding the Turnagain site, project the qu antity of CO emissions generated on a design day in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023 to assess whether compliance of the NAAQS will be maintained throughout the 2008-2023 maintenance plan period with a 90% probability or greater.

A description of how this pr ocedure was applied in the ni ne square kilometer area surrounding the Turnagain monitoring station follows.

Step 1: Computation of 2007 DV for Turnagain Monitoring Station

The probabilistic approach referred to above was used to compute the DV for the Garden and Seward Highway monitors. Results of th e statistical procedur e employed to compute

the DV for the Garden station are illustrated in Figure III B.6-1. The computed 2007 DV is 7.23 ppm.III.B.6-53 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.6-1 Computation of Probabilistic DV for 2007 from

90 th 

### Percentile Prediction Interval at Turnagain Station

7.6

5.5 7.7

5.9 6.7 7.9

4.6 6.1

5.3 5.4 90%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082nd max CO (ppm) 2007 DV 90% = 7.23 ppm



### Step 2: Computation of Micro-area Emission Inventory for Turnagain Station

A gridded emission inventory comprised of the 200 one-kilometer square grids that make-up the Anchorage bowl was prepared for base ye ar 2007. The mobile source portion of these inventories was based on transportation activ ity outputs (e.g., volumes, speeds, number of trip starts) from the Anc horage Transportation Model

. 

### These estimated transportation activity levels were used in conjunction with a “hybrid” MOBILE6 emission factor model to

estimate mobile source CO emissions. MOBILE6 was used to estimate on-road travel emissions and locally-developed cold start em issions data from two studies conducted by

Sierra Research were used to estimate wa rm-up idle emissions. MOBILE6 was run with supplemental FTP speed correction factors disabled to better simulate winter season driving

behavior in Alaska. The Sierra Research studies used as the basis for mobile source modeling are discussed in more detail in Section III.B.3.

The Anchorage Transportation Model was also us eful in providing key information for the area source inventory. The transportation model provided estimates of demographic parameters (population, employment, and housing stock) for each of the grids that were

utilized to estimate area s ource activity (e.g. non-road sources, space heating, industrial activity, and electricity generation, fireplace a nd woodstove emissions). For example, the quantity of CO emitted from fireplace and woods toves in a specific grid was proportional to the number of households in that grid. Othe r area source types, like commercial space heating emissions, were assumed to be a functio n of the amount of employment in each grid.III.B.6-54 Adopted Insert Date 

### A micro-area inventory for the nine square kilometer area surrounding the Turnagain monitor was compiled by summing the CO emission estimates from each of the nine grid cells that comprise the area. CO emissi ons are summarized in Table III.B.6-2.

Table III.B.6-2

Estimated Year 2007 CO Emissions in Ni ne Square Kilometer Area Surrounding the Turnagain Monitoring Statio n (emissions in tons per day)

Motor Vehicles Fireplace or Woodstove Space Heating Other TOTAL

CO EMISSIONS

4.42 0.62 0.28 0.70 6.01



### Step 3: Use Roll-Forward Equation to Calc ulate Allowable Emission Increase at Turngain Station

The roll-forward equation can be used to co mpute the amount that CO emissions can be increased and still maintain compliance with the NAAQS. The equation is written as follows:‡‡‡

% allowable emission increase = 100 x bkg DV DV NAAQS

  

### = 100 0

. 9

x bkg DV DV

 



### In the equation above the DV was computed in Step 1 to be 7.23 ppm but the background

concentration (bkg) has not yet been defined. Note, th at the background value yielding the least allowable percentage in crease in emissions is zero. Thus the most conservative assumption for computing allowable emissions is a background value of zero. This was

utilized in this maintenan ce demonstration. The allowable increase in emission in the Turnagain area from base year 2007 is calculated as follows:

% allowable emission increase = 100 0

. 0 23

. 7 23

. 7 0

. 9

x

  

### = 24.5%

Thus, in the Turnagain area, emissions can increase from 2007 levels by 24.5% and still maintain a 90% probability of compliance with the NAAQS.

Step 4: Calculate Quantity of CO Emissions that can be Generated in the Nine Square Kilometer Area Surrounding the Turnagain Station and Still Attain the NAAQS

If the allowable emission increase at each monitoring station is known from Step 3, the quantity of CO that can be emitted in the nine square kilometer area surrounding the Turnagain station and still meet compliance w ith 90% probability can be determined from the 2007 micro-inventory. The result of this computation is shown in Table III.B.6-3.

‡‡‡ Note that the value assumed for the NAAQS in this equation is 9.0 ppm when in fact 8-hour CO concentrations below 9.5 ppm meet the NAAQS. This le nds an added margin of safety to the computation.III.B.6-55 Adopted Insert Date Table III.B.6-3

Allowable Emissions in the Nine Sq uare Kilometer Area Surrounding the Turnagain Monitoring Station (Maintain >= 90% Probability of Compliance)

2007 Emissions (tons per day) Allowable Emission

Increase Allowable Emissions

in 9 km 2 Area surrounding Turnagain Monitoring Station (tons per day)

6.01 24.5% 7.48



### Step 5: Prepare CO Emission Projectio ns for 2008-2023 and Assess Prospects for Continued Compliance with the NAAQS

Prospects for continued compliance with the NAAQS during the 2008-2023 maintenance plan period were assessed by preparing emi ssion projections for a design day in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023. The Anchorage Transportation Model was run for analysis years 2007, 2017, and 2027. Although mob ile and area source activity levels in intervening years were interpolated, mobile source emission factors were estimated by running MOBILE6 for each and all years evaluated. Depending on the type of source, area source activity levels were projected to gr ow in proportion with housing stock and/or employment.

As was the case with the 2007 base year r uns, MOBILE6 was run with supplemental FTP speed correction factors disabled to better reflect winter driv ing behavior in Anchorage. MOBILE6 was run with the assumption that the I/M Program will change from a four year new car exemption to a six y ear exemption in January 2010.

Cold start / warm-up idle emissions were estima ted using data collected by Sierra Research in testing programs conducted in 19 98-1999 and 2000-2001. These data provide a “snapshot” of warm-up idle emission rates in the year 2000. The effect of new emission control technology and fleet turnover on future emissions was estimated by running MOBILE6 at 2.5 miles per hour and computi ng the emission rate in grams per hour. ‡‡ 

### The relative change in this MOBILE6 idle emission rate relative to the year 2000 was applied to the Sierra Research data to project idle emission fact ors through 2023.

Data collected by Sierra Research indicate block heater usage reduced emissions by 86 grams per cold start in the year 2000. In order to estimate block heater benefits in the future, the benefit in the year 2000 was discounted in proportion with the overall decline in idle emissions predicted by MOBILE6 (i.e., as idle emissions decline, the absolute benefit of plugging-in a block heater also declines). Fo r example, the plug-in benefit falls from 86 grams in 2000 to 43 grams per cold start in 2013.

Any CO reductions that might result from e nhancements to the primary control measures discussed in Section III.B-5 (i.e., I/M, air quality public awareness, rideshare/vanpooling, transit marketing) have been ignored in these emission and compliance projections. Although the MOA and ADEC intend to continue and enhance current efforts to increase

‡‡ This method of estimating idle emissions is recommended in the Users Guide to MOBILE6

.III.B.6-56 Adopted Insert Date 

### plug-in rates among motorists, plug-in rates were conservatively assumed to remain at year 2007 levels throughout the maintenance plan pe riod. Anticipated grow th in vanpooling and transit ridership has also been disregarded. This provides an added measure of conservatism to the computations.

Figure III.B.6-3 shows projected emissions and prospects for continued compliance with the NAAQS at the Turnagain station. In theory, the probability of mainta ining compliance with the NAAQS in any given year is 90% or greate r if emissions remain below the allowable emission levels identified in the figure.

Figure III.B.6-3 Compliance Prospects at the Turnagain Station through 2023

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023CO Emissions (tons per day) A llowable Emissions for 90% Probability of Compliance = 7.48 tons per day



### Conclusions Regarding Long-Term Prospects for Compliance with the CO NAAQS in Anchorage

The preceding analysis suggests there is a ve ry high probability of continued compliance with the CO NAAQS. Anchorage has not violated the NAAQS since 1996 and no exceedances have been measured since 2001. During the period 2008-2023, the estimated probability of complying with the N AAQS is 99% or higher each year.

An additional analysis was performed (see Appendi x to Section III.B.6) to see how sensitive the compliance projections were to assumptions about the growth in emissions over time and the effect of eliminating the I/M Program. Th is sensitivity analysis examined a “worst case”

scenario in which:

(1) the growth in vehicle travel in the Turnag ain area will be three times greater than projected (vehicle travel would increa se by 12% between 2007 and 2023 instead ofIII.B.6-57 Adopted Insert Date 

### the 4% assumed);

(2) there will be a 2% per an num growth in wood heating among households in the Turnagain area resulting from high natural gas prices.

Using these substitute assumptions, CO em issions were re-estimated for the 2008-2023 period and the resultant probabi lities of complying with the NAAQS were re-computed. Even with the assumed higher rates of gr owth in vehicle travel and wood burning, CO

emissions continue to declin e and the probability of complian ce remains at 99% each year through 2023 or higher .

The sensitivity analysis provides additional c onfidence that there is a high likelihood that Anchorage will remain in compliance with the NAAQS even if future growth in vehicle travel and wood burning is more rapid than anti cipated in the projecti ons presented earlier.

Impact of Expanding I/M Testing Exem ptions on Other Criteria Pollutants

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

Each revision to an implementation plan subm itted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notic e and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and re asonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicab le requirement of this Act.

A review of EPA’s Green Book§§§ shows that, with the exception of CO, Anchorage has not been classified as nonattainment for any of the criteria pollutants, including: ozone, PM-2.5, PM-10, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead. It should be noted, that unlike Fairbanks, PM-2.5 concentrations in Anchor age are well below the current 24-hour and annual NAAQS.

§§§ http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.htmlAdopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.7-59 Adopted Insert date 

### III.B.7 Contingency Plan

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAAA requires individu al nonattainment plans to “provide for the implementation of specific measures to be unde rtaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the (applicable) attainment date . . . .” It further states that such contingency measures shall be structured to take effect, if triggered, without any further action by the State or EPA.

Because the ethanol-blended gasoline program was a control measure in the previous Anchorage attainment plan, it must be included as a contingency measure to be implemented

if needed to address future violations of the CO NAAQS.

In addition, a number of other control measures are included in the contingency plan for possible implementation. The menu of contro l measures available for implementation and the projected amount of time needed for implem entation after being triggered by a violation of the NAAQS is listed in Table III.B.7-1.

In the event monitoring data indicate that a violation of the ambient CO standard has occurred, Anchorage would examine the data to assess the spatial ex tent (i.e., hot spot versus region), severity and time period of th e episode as well as trends over time.  Based on this information, Anchorage, in consultation with ADEC, would determine which measure or measures in Table III.B.7-1 to implement.

Table III.B.7-1

Menu of Anchorage Contingency Measures

Contingency Measure Projected Time Necessary for Implementaton

Increase public awareness and education, transit, carpool and vanpool promotion efforts 6 to 12 months

Curtail or limit use of fireplaces, wood stoves and other wood burning appliances when high CO is predicted 6 to 12 months

Promote increase in transit ridership among commuters by offering reduced fares, or free transit fares for employees of companies that contribute to subsidy. 12 to 24 months

Reinstate block heater installation subsidy 12 to 24 months

Reinstate ethanol-blended gasoline 12 to 24 months



### The schedule for completing the above process w ould allow one month for data analysis and

control measure selection once the data are va lidated. The time required for control measure implementation would depend on the measure(s) selected, but in no case would extend beyond 24 months of the violation. If inventor y revisions in future years indicate the probability of attainment will drop below a 90% confidence interval, Anchorage would

** ** For example, if the CO violation(s) occurred in a residential area during evening hours and was
associated with elevated PM-2.5, it might implicate residential wood heating as important factor in the violation. Thus, it might be appropriate to implement a curtailment or restriction of fireplace and wood stove
use when high CO episodes are predicted



### .III.B.7-60 Adopted Insert date 

### conduct a similar analysis and consultation proc ess with ADEC to select and implement the appropriate control measure or measures . Once implemented, Anchorage will track monitoring data and determine in consultati on with ADEC whether additional controls are

needed.III.B.8-61 Adopted Insert date 

### III.B.8 Anchorage Emergency Episode Plan

The CAAA section 127 (42 U.S.C. 7427) requi res that all state implementation plans include measures to provide public notificati on when the NAAQS has been exceeded, advise the public of the health hazards associated with the pollution, and enhance public awareness

of the measures that can be taken to redu ce air pollution. The MOA air pollution episode plan is outlined in municipal code and meet s the requirements of Section 127 (42 U.S.C. 7427). Local ordinance AMC 15.30. 060 requires the director of the MOA Department of Health and Human Services to publish and di stribute copies of an Air Pollution Episode Plan that prescribes the specific actions to be taken at each stage of notification. The plan was developed and published by the MOA in October 1993 and adopted by reference under AMC 15.30.06. Copies of the plan are available from the MOA, Department of Health and Human Services. A copy of AMC 15.30 is in cluded in the Appendix to Section III.B.8.

Three levels of notificati on are outlined in AMC 15.30.060 rela ted to the level of air pollution predicted or measured in the air. For CO these levels are as follows:

 Level 1 – Alert – Declared when the 8-hour averag e CO concentration has reached or is predicted to reach 9 ppm.

 Level 2 – Warning – Declared when the 8-hour average CO concentration has reached or is predicted to reach 15 ppm.

 Level 3 – Emergency – Declared when the 8-hour average CO concentration has reached or is predicted to reach 30 ppm.Adopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.9-63 Adopted Insert Date 

### III.B.9 Assurance of Adequacy

Under the CAAA Section 110(a)(2 )(E) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2 )(E)) each SIP must provide the necessary assurances that the State or the local government designated by the State for such purposes (e.g., MOA), will have "adequa te personnel, funding, and authority" under State or (as appropriate) local la w to carry out the SIP. The CAAA also states that the SIP must provide necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local government for the implementation of any plan provision, th e State retains responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions.

Local Legal Authority

The State of Alaska has delega ted authority for air pollution c ontrol within the Municipality to MOA under AS 46.14.400 (formerly AS 46.03.210). AS 46.03.210 allowed local municipalities to establish air pollution control programs within their jurisdictions by August 5, 1974. In the MOA, air pollution control pow ers are exercised under the South Central Clean Air Ordinance, codified in Anchorag e Municipal Code (AMC ), Chapters 15.30 and 15.35. A copy of AS 46.14.400 is included in Volume III, Appendix to Section II, and copies of AMC 15.30 and 15.35 are included in Volume III, Appendix to Section III.B.8.

AS 46.14.400, AS 28.10.041(a)(10), and AS 29.04 authorize the MOA to implement a motor vehicle emissions inspection program. The MOA Assembly initially enacted the authority for the MOA I/M program in Ma rch 1984 in local ordinance AMC 15.80. As noted in Section III.B.5, the Anchorage A ssembly repealed AMC 15.80 effective no later than December 31, 2009. AMC 15.80 is included in the Appendix to Section III.B.9.

The State, however, retains the authority in Al aska Statutes and regul ation to re-implement I/M and/or oxygenated fuels in Anchorage as contingency measures if it becomes necessary to address a future violation of the NAAQ S. Copies of AS 28.10.041 and AS 29.04 are in the Volume III Appendix to Section II.

Adequate Local Personnel and Funding

Air quality monitoring and planning in Anchorage is performed by the Municipal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These functions are currently supported by revenues from I/M Program Certificate of Inspection fees and an annual Section 105 grant from EPA. †††† 

### The overall budget and staffi ng level of the air quality program is reviewed annually by the MOA Ad ministration and by the Anchorage Assembly. This process provides a means to address needs on a timely basis, consistent with requirements outlined in the Municipal charter and ordinance.

†††† In 2007, air quality program activ ities in DHHS were supported with $3 23,000 in I/M Program revenues and with a $135,195 EPA Section 105 grant.Adopted Insert Date 

### (This page serves as a placeholder for two-sided copying)III.B.10-65 Adopted Insert Date 

### III.B.10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

Before any regional transportation plan can be adopted or amended, the emissions from the transportation network proposed in the plan must be shown to be less than the motor vehicle emission budget established in the SIP. The motor vehicle emissions budget presented here applies during the period 2008 and beyond, unl ess changed in an EPA-approved SIP.

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Inventory Area

The motor vehicle budget is compiled on an ar ea-wide basis. Th e area encompassed by “expanded inventory boundary” noted in Figure III.B.10-1 will be used to establish the emission budget. Future conformity determinations will evaluate emissions in this same

area.

Figure III.B.10-1 Expanded Emission Invent ory Area Used to Compute Emission BudgetIII.B.10-66 Adopted Insert Date 

### Methodology Used to Establish Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

In a manner similar to that used in the comp liance demonstration discussed in III.B.6, the roll-forward approach was used to compute the regional motor vehicle emissions budget for the expanded emission inventory area descri bed in Figure III.B.10-1. The emission budget

is based on estimated emissions within the boun dary of this area during the 2007 base year.

As was the case in the maintenance demonstr ation presented in Section III.B.6, it can be

shown that total emissions within the invent ory area can increase from 2007 levels because there was a greater than 90% probability of meeting the NAAQS at 2007 levels. In other words, CO emissions can increase somewhat from 2007 levels and the probability of compliance would still be greater than 90%. The roll-forward computation is used to

determine how much the CO emission sources can increase within th e inventory area and still maintain compliance with the NAAQS. This amount is the “total CO emission budget.”

Because some of these emission are from sources other than motor vehicles (aircraft, wood heating, etc.), the budget “available” for motor vehicle emissions will be less than the total budget.

The process for determining the motor vehicle emission budget for base year 2007 is

described below.

1. Use roll-forward method to compute total CO emission budget from 2007 area-wide emission inventory and com puted 2007 design value (DV).

Area-wide CO emissions (2007) = 101.0 tons per day 2007 DV = 7.23 ppm

Allowable increase in area-wide emissions = 100 0

. 0 23

. 7 23

. 7 0

. 9

x

  

### = 24.5%

Total CO emissions budget = (1+0.245) x 101.0 = 125.8 tons per day

2. Estimate 2007 motor vehicle budget by subtract ing other “non-motor vehicle emissions”

from total allowable area wide emissions.

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Operations 12.4

Merrill Field Airport Operations 0.7

Wood burning – fireplaces and wood stoves 6.2

Space heating – natural gas 3.8

Miscellaneous (railroad, marine, snowmobiles, snow removal, portable electrical ge nerators, welding, etc.) 9.3

Point sources (power generation, sewage sludge incineration) 1.3

TOTAL NON MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS 33.7 tons per day



### 2007 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget = Total allowable emissions less non motor

vehicle emissions = 125.8 – 33.7 = 92.1 tons per day

The motor vehicle emission budget for the ye ars covered by the maintenance plan, 2008- 2023, will shrink over time because emissions fr om other non motor vehicle sources are expected to grow during this period. Because emissions from all sources in the inventoryIII.B.10-67 Adopted Insert Date 

### area cannot exceed the 125.8 ton per day limit, the amount of the budget available for motor

vehicle emissions will decrease. This is shown in Table III.B.10.1.

Table III.B.10.1

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

Stevens

Int'l Airport Merrill

Field Wood Burning Space Heating Point

Sources Other Non

Motor

Vehicle

Sources

TOTAL TOTAL CO

EMISSION

BUDGET MOTOR

VEHICLE

EMISSION

BUDGET

2007 12.4 0.7 6.2 3.8 1.3 9.3 33.7 125.8 92.1

2008 12.7 0.7 6.3 3.8 1.3 9.3 34.1 125.8 91.7

2009 13.0 0.7 6.4 3.8 1.3 9.4 34.6 125.8 91.2

2010 13.3 0.7 6.4 3.8 1.3 9.5 35.0 125.8 90.8

2011 13.6 0.7 6.5 3.9 1.3 9.5 35.5 125.8 90.3

2012 13.8 0.7 6.5 3.9 1.3 9.6 35.9 125.8 89.9

2013 14.1 0.8 6.6 3.9 1.3 9.6 36.4 125.8 89.4

2014 14.4 0.8 6.7 3.9 1.3 9.7 36.8 125.8 89.0

2015 14.7 0.8 6.7 4.0 1.3 9.8 37.3 125.8 88.5

2016 15.0 0.8 6.8 4.0 1.3 9.8 37.7 125.8 88.0

2017 15.3 0.8 6.8 4.0 1.3 9.9 38.2 125.8 87.6

2018 15.8 0.8 6.9 4.0 1.3 10.0 38.8 125.8 87.0

2019 16.2 0.8 6.9 4.0 1.4 10.0 39.4 125.8 86.4

2020 16.7 0.8 6.9 4.1 1.4 10.1 40.0 125.8 85.8

2021 17.2 0.8 7.0 4.1 1.4 10.1 40.6 125.8 85.2

2022 17.6 0.9 7.0 4.1 1.4 10.2 41.2 125.8 84.6

2023 18.1 0.9 7.0 4.1 1.4 10.3 41.8 125.8 84.0

Note: Some rows may not total exactly because of rounding. Totals are rounded to one significant digit beyond the decimal.



### Emission budgets for years beyond 2023, the end of the maintenance plan, shall be assumed to be 84.0 tons per day.

Long Term Prospects for Meeting Conformity Budget

A preliminary analysis of long term prosp ects for meeting the conformity budget were evaluated using the travel activity projecti ons and transportation network assumptions contained in the current Long Range Transpor tation Plan. The analysis suggests that, barring unanticipated major changes in populat ion or employment gr owth, motor vehicle emissions from Anchorage transportation network will remain below the motor vehicle emission budget during the period 2008–2023. Pr ojected motor vehicle emissions are compared to the budget in Figure III.B.10.2.III.B.10-68 Adopted Insert Date 

### Figure III.B.10-2. Projected Motor Vehicle Emissions vs. Budget 2007 - 2023

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023CO Emissions (tons per day)

Projected Actual Motor Vehicle Emissions Motor Vehicle Emission Budget



### Finding of Adequacy of Mobile Source Emissions Budget

For an emissions budget to be found adequate by EPA, the revisions to the air quality control plan that esta blishes the budget must:

 

### be endorsed by the Governor (or a designee);

- 

### Prior to submittal to EPA, this plan will be filed by the Lieutenant Governor as per state regulation.

 

### be subject to a public hearing;

- 

### Prior to submittal to EPA, these plan revisions were the subject of a public hearing held in Anchorage on July 13 th 

### , 2009. The affidavit of oral hearing will be included in Appendix to Section III.B.10.

 

### be developed through consultation among federal, State and local agencies;

- 

### Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted on the motor vehicle emissions budget. (Note ADEC will update based on comments received).

 

### be supported by documentation that has been provided to EPA ;

- 

### This plan contains documentation suppor ting the motor vehicle emission budget. See Section III.B.3. The CO emission inventory is included in the Appendix to

Section III.B.3.III.B.10-69 Adopted Insert Date  

### address any EPA concerns receiv ed during the comment period;

The methodology presented in this section is consistent with the methodology employed in the previous Maintenance Plan, which was designed to address guidance received from EPA Region 10 staff, including:

 

### clearly identify a nd precisely quantify the revised budget;

- 

### This section clearly identifies the moto r vehicle emissions budget for Anchorage.

 

### show that the motor vehicle emissions budge t, when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with the requirements for continued maintenance of the ambient CO standard;

- 

### The motor vehicle emissions budget is established based on the Anchorage CO emission inventory. The budget when consid ered with all other emission sources is consistent with the requirements for continued maintenance of the CO

standard.

 

### demonstrate that the budget is consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control meas ures in the plan revision;

- 

### The motor vehicle emissions budget is established based on the Anchorage CO emission inventory and control meas ures included in the plan.

 

### explain and document revisions to the pr evious budget and control measures, and include any impacts on poi nt or area sources; and

- 

### The budget presented in this plan is an update of the budget established in the previous version of this plan. A discu ssion of revisions to the control measures and impacts on point and area source s is included in section III.B.5

 

### address all public comment on the plan’s revisions and include a compilation of

these comments.

- 

### The response to comments received is included in the Appendix to Section III.B.10. In addition, the Anchorage A ssembly passed a resolution (2009-144) approving the plan revisions on May 26, 2009

. A copy of this resolution is also included in the same appendix. (Not e ADEC will update based on comments received and Assembly action taken)

Once a motor vehicle emissions budget is found to be adequate by EPA, emissions modeled from the transporation network reflected in the Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget. For projects not from a conforming TIP, the additional emissions from the project together with the TI P emission must be less than or equal to the budget.III.B.10-70 Adopted Insert Date 

### Use of the Hybrid Model in Conformity Analysis

Because a hybrid method, that relies on the use of MOBILE6 for modeling on road travel

emissions and local emissions data to estimate idle emissions, it is necessary to clearly set out a means for agencies to compute emissi ons for use in TIP and project conformity

determinations.

On-road mobile source emission inventories ty pically are computed using emission factors generated by EPA’s latest vehicle factor m odel, MOBILE6 (version 6.2). Unfortunately,MOBILE6 is limited in its ability to represent wintertime CO emission factors in coldweather communities. That model fails to adequately treat two very common wintertime practices in Anchorage that signific antly affect vehicle CO emissions:

1. Extended initial idling of vehicles to warm them up prior to travel; and

2. Use of block heaters to keep the engine wa rm while parked for long periods to aid in cold start driveability.

To address these limitations, on-road mobile source emissions were computed using a hybrid methodology that combines actual meas urements of warm- up idling and plug-in

benefits with emission factors from MOBILE6. This methodology is described in detail in Appendix to Section III.B.3.

To address the subsequent use of this hybrid approach within the c onformity process, the following steps are being incorporated into the conformity procedures for Anchorage transportation plans and projects. The additional steps set out in this section are to be used in conjunction with the app licable requirements for conf ormity found in 18 AAC 50.700-18

AAC 50.735 and Volume II - Sections III.I and III.J of this SIP.

Regional Conformity Determination Methodology

Analysis Years Required for Demonstratio n of Consistency with Emission Budget

Transportation plans and programs must be shown consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget shown above. Criteria and proce dures for determining the consistency with the emissions budget are estab lished in 40 CFR Part 93.118. Th ese regulations state that consistency with the motor vehicle emi ssion budget must be demonstrated for

 each year that the applicable emission plan specifically establishes a motor vehicle emission budget;

 for the last year of the transpor tation plan’s for ecast period; and

 for any intermediate years as necessary so that the years for which consistency is demonstrated are no more than ten years apart.

The conformity regulations state that “the regional emissions analysis may be performed for any years in the timeframe of the transportati on plan provided they are not more than ten years apart and provided the anal ysis is performed for the attainment year (if it is in the timeframe of the transportation plan) and th e last year of the plan’s forecast period.” ‡‡‡‡ 

### The regulations also state that c onsistency with the motor vehicl e budget for other years “may be

‡‡‡‡ See 40 CFR 93.118 d(2)III.B.10-71 Adopted Insert Date 

### determined by interpolating between the years fo r which the regional analysis is performed.” Because Anchorage is a maintenance area that ha s already attained the CO standard, it will not be necessary to include the attainment year as an analysis year in future transportation plans. Thus, for future transportation plans and programs in Anchorage, explicit conformity analysis, involving a separate run of the tr ansportation model and computation of the CO emissions for that particular year, must be pe rformed for the last year of the transportation plan, and any additional years necessary to ensu re that explicit conformity demonstrations are performed no more than ten years apart. Intervening years may be computed by interpolation to establish conformity with each year of the emission budget shown in Table

III.B.10-2.

Assumptions used in modeling analysis for conf ormity determinations must be consistent

with those in the CO Maintenance Plan. The at tributes of the I/M Prog ram must be reflected in modeling assumptions including the six year new car exemption that will be in place in 2010. With the exception of I/M, the primary measures included in the Plan (air quality public awareness, transit marketing, and the ridesharing and vanpooling program) are voluntary programs, their CO reduction benefits were disregarded in the analysis of Anchorage’s prospects for continued comp liance with the NAAQS. Therefore the CO reductions from those programs mu st also be disregarded in regional conformity analyses.

Methodology Employed to Compute Emissions in Analysis Years

The motor vehicle emission budget shown in Tabl e III.B.10-1 was prepared using a “hybrid” method that combined locally collected idle test data with the MO BILE6 model run with supplemental FTP speed correction factors disabl ed. This same hybrid approach was used to prepare the maintenance demonstration for th e Turnagain area. It will also be employed in future regional conformity analyses.

This MOBILE6-based hybrid method provides a means to model the impact of extended initial idling of vehicles prior to travel and the use of “plug-in” heaters to keep the engine warm while parked for long periods to aid in cold start driveability. Because the hybrid

method used to estimate motor vehicle emi ssions in the MOA is unique and somewhat unconventional, it is necessary to delineate a method to compute emissions for use in future TIP and project-level conformity determinations.

To address subsequent use of this hybrid a pproach within the conformity process, the following steps are being incorporated into the conformity procedures for the MOA transportation plans and projects. The additional steps set out in this section are to be used in conjunction with the applicable requirements for conformity found in Volume II, Sections III.I and III.J of this plan and 18 AAC 50.700 – 18 AAC 50.720.

The emission calculations of a project, program , or plan must be consistent with the methodology used to establish the motor vehicl e emissions budget. For regional emissions analyses (e.g., the LRTP or TIP) computations of mobile source emissions will use the same hybrid method used in developing the emi ssion budget. In a regional conformity determination, mobile source emissions resul ting from the plan or program must be compared to the applicable emissions budget established in the SI P. All regionally significant projects must be specificall y modeled in the conformity analysis.

The computation of motor vehicle emissions relies on VMT, speed, and operating mode outputs provided by the Anchorage Transporta tion Model and post processing software.III.B.10-72 Adopted Insert Date 

### Currently, these post-processor outputs are uti lized in a separate Excel spreadsheet model

that contains MOBILE6 emission factors used to estimate travel emissions and idle emission

factors that are based on local test data. The user must provi de estimates of average soak times, idle duration and plug-in rates by trip purpose. Base year 2007 assumptions are shown in Tables III.B.10-2 (a-c). These same assumptions should be used for other analysis years. Any deviation from th ese assumptions should be disc ussed and approved through the interagency consultation process outlined in 40 CFR 93.105.

Changes to the Anchorage Transportation Mo del may necessitate modifications in the manner in which regional mobile source emi ssions are calculated. Significant changes

should be documented and then discusse d and approved through the interagency consultation process.III.B.10-73 Adopted Insert Date 

### Tables II.B. 10-2(a-c) Assumptions Regarding Soak Times, Idle Duration and Plug-In Rates for Modeling Regional Conformity

Table III.B.10.2(a)

Assumptions for AM Peak Period (7 AM – 9 AM)

Trip Type§§§§ Trip Origin Average Soak

Time (hours) Average Idle

Duration (minutes) % plugged

in Proportion of Trips originating from

home vs.

other*****

HB Work Home 12 7 20% 0.955

Other 5 3 0% 0.045

HB Shop Home 12 7 10% 0.794

Other 1 1 0% 0.206

HB School Home 12 7 20% 0.972

Other 0.5 1 0% 0.028

HB Other Home 12 7 20% 0.798

Other 1 1 0% 0.202

NHB Work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 4 3 0% 1.000

NHB Non-work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 1 1 0% 1.000

Truck Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 2 3 0% 1.000

§§§§ Trip types include: HB Work = trips between home and work or vice versa, HB shop = trips between home and a shopping destination or vice versa; HB School = trips between home and school or vice versa,

HB Other = trips between home and some destination other than work, shopping or school or vice versa;

NHB Work = trips between work and a destination other than home or vice versa; NHB non-work = trips between two locations that are neither work or home; and Truck = freight trips made by commercial trucking.

***** The travel model provides information regarding the types a trip taken in a particular grid but does not specify whether they began and work, home, or other lo cation. For example, the travel model might estimate that 1,000 HB work trips began in a particular grid between 7 AM and 9 AM. We do not know, however, whether these trips began at home or work. For modeling purposes, we assume that 95.5% of these trips began at home and would therefore have an average soak time of 12 hours, an idle duration of 7 minutes and 20% would be plugged in. The remaining 4.5% of these trips we assume began at work with shorter soak (5 hours) and idle times (3 minutes) than home. The plug-in rate at work is assumed to be zero. These assumptions are based on an analysis of Anchor age Home Interview Survey data.III.B.10-74 Adopted Insert Date Table III.B.10.2(b)

Assumptions for Off Peak Periods (9 AM – 3 PM, 6 PM – 7 AM)

Trip Type Trip Origin Average Soak

Time (hours) Average Idle

Duration (minutes) % plugged

in Proportion of Trips originating from

home vs. other

HB Work Home 3 3 10% 0.500

Other 5 3 0% 0.500

HB Shop Home 1 1 0% 0.500

Other 0.5 1 0% 0.500

HB School Home 2 2 0% 0.500

Other 0.5 1 0% 0.500

HB Other Home 2 2 5% 0.500

Other 1 1 0% 0.500

NHB Work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 3 2 0% 1.000

NHB Non-work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 1 1 0% 1.000

Truck Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 2 1 0% 1.000

Table III.B.10.2(c)

Assumptions for PM Peak Periods (3 PM - 6 PM)

Trip Type Trip Origin Average Soak

Time (hours) Average Idle

Duration (minutes) % plugged

in Proportion of Trips originating from

home vs. other

HB Work Home 3 3 10% 0.500

Other 5 3 0% 0.500

HB Shop Home 1 1 0% 0.500

Other 0.5 1 0% 0.500

HB School Home 2 2 0% 0.500

Other 0.5 1 0% 0.500

HB Other Home 2 2 5% 0.500

Other 1 1 0% 0.500

NHB Work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 3 2 0% 1.000

NHB Non-work Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 1 1 0% 1.000

Truck Home NA NA 0% 0.000

Other 2 1 0% 1.000III.B.10-75 Adopted Insert Date 

### Project-Level Conformity Methodology

In project-level analysis, conformity determin ations cannot be made by comparing localized project emissions to a regional emissions budge t. Instead, a projec t-level conformity analysis consists of performing hot-spot disp ersion 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 nonattainment and maintenance areas for each pol lutant. Thus, in Anchorage, hot-spot CO modeling must be performed in project-level c onformity determinations. Inputs to the hotspot modeling include link-specific vehicle em ission factors for roadway segments in the project vicinity. For project-level analyses, th ese emission factors will be developed in one of two ways, depending on the type of pr oject. Through the interagency consultation process, a project will be put in to 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 appr oach to computing emission impacts using MOBILE6 with supplemental FTP speed corr ection factors disabled. Off-network emissions will not be directly modeled in the analyses of these projects, as they do not change as a result of the pr oject. For these types of proj ects, off-network emissions are accounted for in the background con centration input in CAL3QHC.

2. Those projects that do significantly impact o ff-network emissions (e.g., projects that are likely to affect the amount of initial idling an d/or engine block heat er use in the project area) will follow a process that incorporates both the off-network emissions and the onroad “traveling” emissions. This will require a hybrid approach sim ilar to that used in developing the emission budget and adapted to represent roadway li nk-specific emission factors in the vicinity of the project.

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 tw o scenarios listed above. Moreover, it is important that the interagency process be used to develop guidance so that consis tent methodologies are utilized in project-level anal yses. Hot spot modeling is of ten required in project-level conformity determinations. When possible, th e interagency consultation process should be used to develop written guidance regardi ng modeling inputs and assumptions and these assumptions should be consistent with those employed in the maintenance demonstration in this Plan.††††† As always, conformity determ inations will be subject to the applicable public review requirements. This provides the public an opportuni ty to comment on the approach that is taken for the conformity de termination for each plan, program, and project.

Unless otherwise approved through interagenc y consultation, the CO background value to be employed in hot spot modeling is 5.1 ppm for a one-hour average or 3.6 ppm for an 8-hour average. These values should be us ed to model CO emissions in 2008. Background concentrations are expected to decline over time in relation to anticipated future reductions in CO emissions. To estimate background concentrations for future years, the 2008 background concentration should be adjusted downward in accordance with CAL3QHC

††††† As noted earlier, this means disregarding the CO reduction benefits of air quality public awareness, transit marketing, and the ridesharing and vanpooling programs..III.B.10-76 Adopted Insert Date 

### modeling guidance. A detailed discussi on on how the 2008 background concentration was

derived can be found in the Appendix to Section III.B.10.

General Conformity

For projects requiring general conf ormity determinations, it is also important to consider the impacts of off-network motor vehicle emi ssions (e.g., idle emissions). Interagency

consultation shall be used to determine whet her off-network mobile source emissions are significant and what analysis of these emissi ons is appropriate for determining general conformity. An example of a project of this type is an airport expansion.III.B.11-77 Adopted Insert date 

### III.B.11 Redesignation Request

On February 18, 2004 the State of Alaska submitt ed a request to the EPA that Anchorage be redesignated from a serious nonattainment area to an attainment area. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAAA requires the U.S. EPA administrato r to make five findings prior to granting a request for redesignation:

1. The U.S. EPA has determined that the NAAQS has been attained;

2. The applicable implementation plan has b een fully approved by U.S. EPA under section 110(K);

3. The U.S. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;

4. The U.S. EPA has fully approved a maintenan ce plan, including a contingency plan, for the area under Section 175A, which includes as contingenc y measures all contingency

measures that were contained in the most recently approved State Implementation Plan;

5. The U.S. EPA has fully approved a maintenan ce plan, including a contingency plan, for the area under Section 175A, which includes as contingenc y measures all contingency

measures that were contained in the most recently approved State Implementation Plan.

The information necessary for EPA to make these five findings was as follows:

Attainment of the Standard

According to EPA guidance, the demonstration of attainment with the CO standard must rely on three complete, consecutive years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data

collected in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix K. The Anchorage CO nonattainment area did not experience any violations of the NAAQS during the three-year period, 2000- 2002, prior to submission of the redesignation request. (‡‡‡‡‡

Approved Implementation Plan

As discussed in Section III.B.1, the department revised its State Implementation Plan in response to the moderate nonattainment desi gnation in 1994. When Anchorage was unable to achieve attainment by the 1995 deadline, the department submitted revisions to meet the requirements of its serious nonattainment redesi gnation. The attainment plan revisions were approved through the AMATS process, incorporat ed into state regulations and submitted to EPA for findings of adequacy and budget approval s. The attainment plan became effective on October 18, 2002.

Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

CO reductions leading to attain ment of the federal standards are the result of local control actions that were implemented beginning in 1978. Additionally, the MOA adopted the I/M technician training and certifi cation program contingency measur e in the moderate plan as backup should violations occur. This measure was triggered in 1996. Section III.B.5 contains an expanded discussion of existing control action implementation. Section III.B.6 contains a discussion of long-term prospects for attainment aided by the reductions resulting

‡‡‡‡‡ The period without a violation now extends through 2008. An expanded discussion of Anchorage CO air quality data is included in Section III.B.3.III.B.11-78 Adopted Insert date 

### from the continued implementation of the ve hicle inspection and ma intenance program, the Rideshare and Vanpooling program, and engine block heater program.

Section 110 and Part D Requirements

Section 110 and Part D of the CAAA address im plementation of SIPs and SIP requirements for nonattainment areas. EPA’s finding of ad equacy and budget approval of the MOA Serious Area SIP on October 18, 2002, demonstr ates compliance with the Section 110 and Part D requirements.

Approved Maintenance Plan

The department in conjunction with the MOA submitted the Maintenance Plan concurrently with the redesignation request. The department requested that EPA expeditiously review the Plan and, if determined to meet the provision s of the CAAA, approve the Maintenance Plan as a part of the redesignation process. This request was approved by EPA effective July 23, 2004 (64FR 34935).Adopted Insert Date 

### References

1 

### “Anchorage 2007 Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory and 2007 – 2023 Emission Projections ,” Air Quality Program, Municipality of Anchorage, April 2009.

2 

### “Winter Season Warm-up Driver Behavior in Anchorage,” Air Quality Program, Municipality of Anchorage, June 2001.

3 “Analysis of the Probability of Comply ing with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO in Anchorage betw een 2007 and 2023,” Anchorage Air Quality Program, April 2009.

4 

### “Municipality of Anchorage I/M Program Eval uation Study,” prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage by Sierra Research, In c., Report No. SR2007-01-01, January 19, 2007.

5 

### “The Ongoing Challenge of Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Fairbanks, Alaska,” National Research Council, May 2002.

6 

### “United States Motor Vehicle Inspection a nd Maintenance Programs,” prepared by Sierra Research for the U.S. EPA, July 2001.

7 

### “Anchorage I/M Compliance Rate Study,” ADE C Air and Water Quality Program, March

1999.

8 

### “Public Transportation Department Ridership Report,” Anchorage People Mover, prepared January 2009.

9 

### “Fairbanks Cold Temperature Vehicle Test ing: Warm-up Idle, Between Trip Idle, and Plug-in,” prepared for the Alaska Depa rtment of Environmental Conservation by Sierra Research, Inc., Report No. SR01-07-01, July 2001.

10 

### “Anchorage Public Opinion Survey, Februa ry 2000,” Ivan Moore Research, February

2000.

11 

### Public Transportation Department Ridership Report, Anchorage People Mover, prepared January 2009.

12 

### E-mail communication from Alton Staff, Anchorage People Mover, April 7, 2008.

13 

### “Fairbanks Cold Temperature Vehicle Testi ng: Warm-up Idle, Between Trip Idle, and Plug-in,” Sierra Research, July 2001.

14 

### “CO Dispersion Model Feasibil ity Study: Fairbanks and Anc horage, Alaska,” prepared for the Alaska Department of Environmen tal Conservation by Systems Applications International, Inc. / ICF Consulting, June 14, 2002.