From: Ungvarsky.John@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Ungvarsky.John@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:20 PM

To: Ruiz, Gabe@ARB; CHARLES ANDERSON

Cc: HAO QUINN; Johnson, Martin@ARB

Subject: RE: Source of emission inventory information in PM10 redesignation request and maintenance 

plan

Gabe and Charles -

Hello again. 

Do you know to what extent the 2008, 2012, and 2022 emissions inventories in the PM10

Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County have already 

taken credit for measures in the ARB's State Strategy? If so, what measures have already been credited 

and which have not? For example, were projected reductions from the truck rule already factored into the 

projected NOx inventories for 2012 and 2022? Other than the short paragraph on page 5-5 of the 

submittal, there is no detailed information provided indicating how the substantial drop in NOx reductions 

were achieved.

John Ungvarsky

Environmental Scientist

USEPA, Region 9

Air Planning Office

415-972-3963

________________

From: "Johnson, Martin@ARB" <mjohnson@arb.ca.gov>

To: John Ungvarsky/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, "Ruiz, Gabe@ARB" <gruiz@arb.ca.gov>, CHARLES ANDERSON 

<CAnderson@airquality.org>, 

Cc: HAO QUINN <HQUINN@airquality.org>

Date: 12/27/2012 10:30 AM

Subject: RE: Source of emission inventory information in PM10 redesignation request and maintenance plan

John,

The truck rule was not accounted for in the 2009 Almanac. Neither was the construction rule that 

penetrates the Off-Road equipment category. These two rules are accounted for in our more current 

inventories. As for the other measures in the statewide strategy, it is unlikely that any of these measures 

were accounted for in the baseline projection for the 2009 Almanac as the on-road inventories were not 

updated between the time of the CEFS v106 and the publication of the 2009 Almanac. Hope this helps.

Martin
__________________

From: Ungvarsky.John@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Ungvarsky.John@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:13 AM

To: Johnson, Martin@ARB

Cc: CHARLES ANDERSON; Ruiz, Gabe@ARB; HAO QUINN

Subject: RE: Source of emission inventory information in PM10 redesignation request and maintenance 

plan

Thanks Martin. Yes, very helpful. Is it safe to then say that the Sacramento PM10 emission inventories 

for 2022 are conservative in that they do not include reductions from State measures adopted since ... 

2009? Is there a cutoff date that separates the State measures that are in and out?

John Ungvarsky

Environmental Scientist

USEPA, Region 9

Air Planning Office

415-972-3963

___________________

From: "Johnson, Martin@ARB" <mjohnson@arb.ca.gov>

To: John Ungvarsky/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: CHARLES ANDERSON <CAnderson@airquality.org>, "Ruiz, Gabe@ARB" <gruiz@arb.ca.gov>, HAO QUINN 

HQUINN@airquality.org>

Date: 12/27/2012 11:25 AM

Subject: RE: Source of emission inventory information in PM10 redesignation request and maintenance plan

Yes, the estimates would be considered conservative. I checked the documentation and it appears that 

rules adopted or amended for stationary measures through July 1, 2005 were included. I don’t have a 

specific cutoff date for mobile sources, I would assume a statement that mobile source measures were 

included through Jan 1, 2006 (approximate).

Re: Onroad cutoff date, make that mid 2006. EMFAC2007 was released November 2006. It is 

likely that some measures adopted in 2006 made it in but I don’t have a specific cutoff date.