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 informa tion 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" < m johnson@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 publicat ion 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 adopt ed 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 cutof

f 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.