Dear Prof. Venkatarman,
I congratulate you with this interesting and comprehensive manuscript. As you will see referee 2 is happy with the manuscript. I think also the concerns of referee 1 were addressed adequately. I had a quick read-through of the manuscript- and suggest the following minor technical corrections below. After addressing these the manuscript is ready for ACP.

1) "which typically contributes to less than 5% of PM-2.5 mass, thus not influencing overall results in any significant manner."=>please add references for this.
2) In your referencing to ECLIPSE and GAINS scenario's please clarify at the relevant places: which version (e.g. ECLIPSE v5a) and which scenario variant you are comparing to (in my understanding of the text Current-legislation CLE). Adding this information will avoid confusion. Also include in figure captions. Also supplementary.
3) 6)-Table S1: it is not clear why NH3 (and possibly also PM10 and CO) emissions by state are not reported here. It would indeed be helpful if in Table S1 the NH3 emissions per state could be included- even if they come from a different inventory.
4) "Future shifts to BS IV and BS VI emission standards lead to reductions in emission levels by 80% and 90% respectively.”->explain how these compare to European/American Standards.
5) Please add in main text and figure caption of Figure S7, what these 95 % confidence interval represent. I would presume they represent a subset of uncertainties, but are not very likely to give a full uncertainty range.
6) Abstract PM2.5 standard. Annual standard?
7) Figure 1. Please check the consistency of PM2.5; OC and BC. It seems that OC and BC from residential biomass are larger than the PM2.5.