Not logged in - Login
< back

Onroad Workgroup

Collaborative Wiki Main Page

Inventory Collaborative Google Drive Link


Co-leads: Julie McDill (MARAMA), Alison Eyth (EPA)

Molly Birnbaum - Alaska, Brian Sullins - Alabama, Sylvia Vanderspek and Leo Ramirez - California, Rebecca Simpson - Colorado, Dale Wells - Colorado, Alexandra Catena - D.C., Gil Grodzinsky - Georgia, Marc Bennett - Massachusetts, Marcia Ways - Maryland, Todd Pasley - North Carolina, John Gorgol - New Jersey, Rob McDonough and Chris Rochester - New York, Mike Maleski - Ohio, Chris Trostle - Pennsylvania, Susanne Cotty - Pima County, Carla Bedenbaugh - South Carolina, Chris Kite - Texas, Peter Verschoor and Rick McKeague - Utah, Sonya Lewis-Cheatham - Virginia, Chris Bovee and Mike Friedlander - Wisconsin, Michelle Oakes - Tennessee, Brian Timin - EPA OAQPS,

Onroad Workgroup Meetings

MOVES MJO meetings held the third Thursday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. Additional 2016-specific meetings may be scheduled as needed.

May 16, 2019


1) Update by EPA on 2016 Platform and 2017 NEI (Alison Eyth) 2) Update on C-115 Vin Decode Project (Mark Janssen, LADCO) 3) Guest Speaker - Gary Bishop, Univ. of Denver, "On-Road Vehicle Emission Changes in a S. Los Angeles Neighborhood After Twenty-Nine Years." - 20 min 4) Upcoming webinars and workshops - MDC, STAQS, etc. - 2 min


ACHD, AECOM, Clark county, CO, CT, DC, Denver University, EPA OTAQ, EPA OAQPS, FHWA, GA, LADCO, MADEP, MARAMA, MD, ME, Michael Baker International, MI, MO, NC, NJ, OH, OR, PA, RAQC, RI, SC, Shelby County, TN, TX, TN, VT, VA, WI


May PPT Files and April Final Notes are here:



2016v1 and 2017 NEI Onroad and Nonroad Emissions Update, Alison Eyth, EPA

Presentation included a list of what States provided for onroad data for 2016v1, along with nonroad data provided by Alaska and Georgia. It also included 2017 NEI submitters for both Onroad and Nonroad data. Alison pointed out that California provided emissions for both – with onroad based on the EMFAC model. EPA will review the data provided by the states and apportion provided activity data to the SCC level as is needed by SMOKE-MOVES. They will compare the CRC A-100 and A-115data to 2017 NEI submissions to make sure they are not going “backward” based on previous EIs. They will refine representative counties for both 2016v1 / 2017 and provided more information in June to the group. Alison discussed activity data approaches for both inventories. Their goal is for 2017 NEI and 2016v1 to share approaches when possible. Some states have submitted 2020 data; however, they are not sure how to work this in yet because the Inventory Collaborative is not building a full 2020 modeling platform, although EPA committed to run MOVES for onroad and nonroad. Timeline: prepare all inputs and run MOVES for 2016v1 (June (base year) & July (2023, 2028, and if there is time 2020) then finish 2017 NEI (later in the summer).

Some states had concerns that script to get activity data out of CDBs did not work properly and produced different results than running MOVES; however, EPA was pleased to learn that the script to get activity data out of the CDBs is working well – they basically found only minimal rounding errors.


1.       Why do we need to change representative counties? A: Vehicle age is one of the parameters on which rep. counties are based. If the vehicle ages used change, then we need to re-look at the rep. counties.

2.       NC plans to provide new data with changes to their I/M requirements for 2023 / 2028.

3.       States wanted more info on the QA plan. EPA will try to share more next time.

Update on 2017 population review (ERG) - presented by Alison Eyth

CRC project A-115 provided vehicle populations and age distributions for four cases of light-duty vehicles for both years 2016 and 2017: Unadjusted, Remove antiques, 2014 NJ-based adjustment, keep antiques and 2014 NJ-based adjustment, remove antiques

EPA is proposing using to adjust the 2017 data for non-submitting states using 2017 pooled NEI submittals and presented a 5th aoption: 2017 Submittal-based adjustment, keep antiques


  • The 2017-based adjustments to the VPOP and the resulting age distributions look reasonable
  • May want to recompute the adjustment after correcting the 21/31/32 split issues
  • May consider dropping Georgia from the adjustment factors because they use IHS data directly (Note: Gil, GA EPD, said that it made sense to drop GA).
  • There is variability in how the 30+ bin is handled in state data
  • Using CRC A-115 data over state data pulls from 2013/2014 may be warranted
  • Caught a few states that submitted 2014 versus 2017 data while doing the QA, which were then corrected.

CRC Data is available for review on FTP site given previously.

There was some disagreement between agencies and EPA on whether 2017 data would keep (EPA, Todd, NC) or remove (Mark, LADCO; Julie, MARAMA) antiques and apply adjustment.

VIN Decode Group Update - Mark Janssen, LADCO

Mark may continue some work with the VIN decode group to get to the bottom of the 21 vs 31/32 splits and the reason IHS differs from state characterizations. Gil pointed out that MOVES2014 uses the 10K threshold for light duty vs medium-duty. Maryland noted that their light commercial truck population is higher than CRC A-115. It was mentioned that the main difference in the handling of 31 vs 32 is the drive cycle.

April 18, 2019


1) Presentation by Dale Wells, CO on the MOVES Review 2) Presentation by Sarah Roberts, EPA on the “Overview of 2017 NEI Onroad & Nonroad Submittals”. 3) Presentation by Dr. Mark Peckham and Jamie Parnell, Cambustion, on “Ultra-fast response on-board emissions measurement for air quality”.

Comments on beta version due by May 31


ACHD, AECOM, Cambustion Ltd (UK), CO DPHE, CT DEEP, DNREC, EPA OAQPS, EPA OTAQ, FHWA, GA EPD-DNR, MARAMA, MassDEP, MDE, MEDEP, Missouri DNR, Michael Baker International, MI DEQ, MI DOT, MPCA, NC DEQ, NJDEP, NYSDEC, PA DEP, Pima Association of Governments, RI DEM, SCDHEC, Shelby County, TCEQ, TN DEC, VADEQ, WI DNR, WVDEP,


The files discussed and presentations given are at the following links, finalized notes for February and March are also provided:



1) Presentation by Dale Wells, CO on the MOVES Review by EPA webinar that was conducted on April 10. Dale spoke about the next major version of MOVES (TBD, but 2020 is earliest) that indicated net impact on emissions is unclear at this time. EPA plans to extend the model to cover out to 2060 (currently 2050). More work with Nonroad will continue. Dale also mentioned updates on Glider vehicles, not currently accounted for in MOVES2014b, which will be included in a future version.

2) Presentation by Sarah Roberts, EPA on the “Overview of 2017 NEI Onroad & Nonroad Submittals”. After some initial contract delays, EPA’s contractor is now reviewing submitted CDBs. This presentation lists all the submitting agencies for agencies to review. Along with an Onroad summary of what fields were updated with county information. As of today, there were 663 counties from 10 States that submitted Nonroad information.

3) Presentation by Dr. Mark Peckham and Jamie Parnell, Cambustion, on “Ultra-fast response on-board emissions measurement for air quality”. This interesting presentation on Real world Driving Emissions (RDE) began with comparing PEMS with a response time of seconds vs. fast response exhaust analyzers in milliseconds which can then show the short-duration “spikes” of emissions associated with typical driving transients and the accurate positioning of NOx “hot spots” to within an accuracy of a few inches. The data is collected while vehicles were moving over certain routes, including speed bumps and traffic circles/signals, and showed an increase in emissions with vehicles once they sped up past the “obstacle”. The ironic piece of information is that most of these obstacles are placed for safety reasons at locations where children may be present. Several types of vehicles / fuels were observed with similar results; older diesel vehicles being particularly bad for NOx compared with latest generation diesels being incredibly clean. One other interesting tidbit was the “stop/start” option on vehicles to save fuel. It was shown that older vehicles tend to produce a large restart spike of NOx making the stop/start rarely worthwhile over short periods. In the UK, it was observed that modern diesel vehicles seldom deploy stop/start if conditions are not correct. In the US, it will only be overridden if the driver sets the control before every trip. Link for more information:

4) Upcoming Workshops and webinars:

  • Tuesday, April 23rd 1:00 – 2:00pm ET: Updating FHWA's CMAQ Program Website and Resources. Note: this webinar is not about CMAQ funding or eligibility requirements or about the CMAQ Performance Plan requirements.

  • Wednesday, April 24th 1:00 – 2:00pm ET: Updating the Website and Program Materials for FHWA's It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air.

More information may be found in the FHWA Air Quality and Sustainable Transportation Highlights Jan-Feb ‘19 newsletter, which has been saved to the dropbox and sharefile locations. This bi-monthly newletter provides updates on transportation air quality issues and ideas that may be of interest to the MJO MOVES Workgroup.

March 21, 2019

Attendees :

A Aleynick (AECOM), Z Li (Clark County), R Dawson (CO), K Shonkwiler (CO), D Wells (CO), M Geigert (CT), S Potter (CT), J Jakuta (DC), J Shelton (DE), D Birkett (EPA), L Driver (EPA OAQPS), A Eyth (EPA OAQPS), S Roberts (EPA OTAQ), G Grodzinsky (GA), K Liao (GA), T Zeng (GA), m jansen (LADCO), C Butler (Louisville), m bennett (MA), C Woleader (MA), D Wilson (MARAMA), E Bull (MD), M Khan (MD), U Kukier (MD), T Omolewa (MD), T Wallace (MD), M Woodman (MD), D Cormier (ME), Y Chung (Michael Baker), S Lachance (Michigan), d kvale (MN), S Allen (MO), T Pasley (NC), K Errington (NH), Y Chew (NJ), T Dvorak (NJ), J Gorgol (NJ), M Tutt (NJ), E zalewsky (NY), C Trostle (PA), B Trowbridge (PA), C Menke (RI), C bedenbaugh (SC), L Caldwell (SC), D Hobbs (SC), c boyd (Shelby), D Liu (Shelby County), M Corrigan (TN), J smith (TN), A Slevin (TX), K Black (US DOT), S Lewis-Cheatham (VA), J Lin (VA), C Smythe (VT), C Bovee (WI), D Fewell (WV), M Kemper (WV),


The files and presentations discussed are here:



1. EPA update (A. Eyth)

The 2016 Beta was released on March 13, 2019 and includes a lot of documentation. Here is a link on the Collaborative Wiki Page: and there is a link to the beta platform release page from the main page. The presentation by Alison included next steps and specific state data received for 2016v1.

2016beta projections to 2023 and 2028 to be released to Collaborative members in April, 2019

EPA is collecting comments on Beta version through May 31, but send as soon as possible.

During the call it was requested that comments be sent by April 5 on State data that may be missing.

FYI 2016v1 will be completed before the 2017 NEI. Once all inputs have been prepared, EPA will run MOVES for 2016v1 nonroad and onroad. The 2017 NEI would then follow

See more information in presentation that has been uploaded to dropbox.

2. VIN Decoding Project (M. Janssen)

The data will become final after all the documentation is finished and approved. Date is TBD but should be soon.

3. SMOKE-MOVES vs Two-day per month vs. Gold Standard Presentation (H. Michaels)

A very interesting talk by Harvey Michaels who will be retiring soon. He discussed how using SMOKE-MOVES will vary from the Gold Standard (running MOVES for every hour of every day) versus a 2 day per month inventory mode approach. He explained that 50 counties in the study (out of 3000+ in the US) were not randomly selected. He discussed the difference between Average County vs. Representative county and how States’ inputs do vary significantly. It is cheaper to run SMOKE-MOVES than to run the 2 day per month or the Gold Standard.

SMOKE MOVES: Runs with fewer counties and months by using "representative" for groups of counties and two fuel months. Runs MOVES in emission factor mode to produce emission factor tables (by temperature, speed, and vehicle type/fuel/emission process) and then apply activity to them from each county and then it is processed down to grid level. He says you don't have to rerun MOVES again for differing conditions, just look up on the emission factor table.

2 days per month: Runs every county in inventory mode MOVES where there is just day=2 (weekend) and day=5 (weekday) in a month. So every county has its own inputs (age, speeds, etc.) and you get emissions. Then have to reduce them to grid level using SMOKE. Have to rerun MOVES if inputs change. However, keep in mind that if age of the fleet, I/M program, or ramp fraction changes then you would have to rerun MOVES for SMOKE-MOVES and two day. Also, 2 days per month uses transition fuel months so there are 3 fuel blends versus 2 in SMOKE-MOVES. October and April emissions differ between SMOKE-MOVES and 2 day due to this and in reality the fuel doesn't switch from one to other instantly.

Gold Standard: Same as 2 days per month EXCEPT run inventory MOVES with daily-hourly meteorology. So, instead of running inventory MOVES once for July 2014 for X county and get typical weekday and weekend emissions and diurnal patterns, you run MOVES 31 times, using daily available meteorology data for July 1, then July 2, etc. And whatever day it is, you run MOVES "weekday" if it is a weekday, and MOVES "weekend" if it is a weekend. Everything else stays the same. Gold Standard is not the same as 2 days per month.

Note: Harvey was pushing for continuing to use SMOKE-MOVES vs. modifying the 2 day inventory method to a "gold standard". However, states could run a "gold standard" method since it is inventory mode, they only need to run SMOKE to get the county level data down to the grid level. SMOKE-MOVES continues to be very hard for states to run, basically only by EPA (one state has tried), there still are complications with the system.

See presentation in Dropbox for more information.

4. Upcoming webinars / workshops

EPA: Next National Report Out quarterly update on all sectors: April 3 at 12:00 Eastern

If you have not registered for a previous quarterly update, register at:

TRB Webinar: Programs to Support the Deployment of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Wednesday, April 3, 2019, 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM ET

AWMA Freight & Environment: Ports of Entry

October 23-24, 2019, Newark, NJ Call for abstracts extended through March 29th.

February 21, 2019

Attendees: S Vozar (ACHD), A Aleynick (AECOM), B Sullins (AL), Z Li (Clark County), D Wells (CO), R Dawson (CO), D Ross (CT), L Corsino (CT), M Geigert (CT), S Potter (CT), J Jakuta (DC), J Shelton (DE), A Eyth (EPA OAQPS), L Driver (EPA OAQPS), J Vukovich (EPA OAQPS), S Roberts (EPA OTAQ), A DenBleyker (ERG), K Black (FHWA), D Kall (FHWA), B Kim (GA), G Grodzinsky (GA), K Liao (GA), m jansen (LADCO), C Butler (Louisville), M Bennett (MA ), K Santlal (MA ), M Wert (MA ), J McDill (MARAMA), D Wilson (MARAMA), U Kukier (MD), T Omolewa (MD), M Woodman (MD), M Khan (MD), E Bull (MD), T Wallace (MD), D Cormier (ME), Y Chung (Michael Baker), S Lachance (Michigan), S Allen (Missouri), D kvale (MN), J Huang (NC), K Errington (NH), D Healy (NH), Y Chew (NJ), J Gorgol (NJ), M Tutt (NJ), M Sheehan (NY), E Zalewsky (NY), W Kenny (OH), W Risher (OR), B Trowbridge (PA), M Houser (PA), S Cotty (Pima), D Hobbs (SC), C Bedenbaugh (SC), L Caldwell (SC), J Chen (SEMCOG), C Boyd (Shelby), M Corrigan (TN), J Smith (TN), A Slevin (TX), M Boardman (TX A&M), S Lewis-Cheatham (VA), J Merrell (VT), T Moore (WESTAR), C Bovee (WI), D Fewell (WV), M Kemper (WV),


January & February PPT Files & Notes and December Final Notes are here:



1. EPA Updates

Since this was our first workgroup webinar since the Shutdown ended, there were updates on the following by EPA: Onroad 2016 (Alison Eyth), Nonroad 2016 (Sarah Roberts) and the NEI2017 emission inventories.

•       As discussed in November, Onroad and Nonroad emissions are available for 2016, 2023, 2028

•       Onroad data summaries, maps, and state-specific zip files of inventories are available:

•       Nonroad data summaries, maps, and state-specific zip files of inventories are available here:

•       LADCO is hosting maps (e.g., gridded, county total, comparisons) and charts for all sectors here:

•       Sample maps showing Emission Density comparison for 2016ff Onroad NOx between 2016 and 2023 were included in the presentation. Many more are found at the link.

For Nonroad, Sarah mentioned that the results from the Beta Run without State Supplied data including new growth rates for engines and summary files are available through the EPA FTP. They are now working on V1 with two updates: allocation of Agriculture equipment (which NC is working on), and allocation of construction equipment (acres disturbed surrogate). The Wiki has updates and presentations here:

The 2016 Collaborative Onroad Wiki can be found here:

NEI2017 Update: Most data has been submitted to EIS; still a few outstanding but if anyone still has problems submitting, let Laurel know.

The slides include a list of agencies that submitted for Nonroad and Onroad NEI2017 submissions. For those States with concerns that their data was received, they should work with Laurel to verify.

Next Steps: Once all inputs have been prepared:

•       Run MOVES for 2016v1 nonroad and onroad

•       Run MOVES for 2017 NEI nonroad and onroad

Data review biggest effort up front, but hoping to be done 2016v1 by spring, then 2017 in the summer.

There were a few questions on fuel updates and re-allocations. Including a question on RVP issue within MOVES, which OTAQ may be developing new fuel tables and the RVP relaxation that occurred a few years ago may be folding into the new tables. GA and NC are in the same situation for several of their counties, so this is something that may need to be reviewed once it’s completed.

2. Presentation by ERG on CRC A-115 Projection (A. Denbleyker)

Summary: Evidence that IHS vehicle populations are consistently higher when compared to State analyses. NJ, MO, ME volunteered to share their registration data for review in the project. ERG worked on the following deliverables with EPA: Population, Age Distribution, Fuel type splits, and GVWR summary for US counties (which is not a MOVES input).

Two goals of A-115 were to 1) Use mid-year 2017 registration data draw to create default MOVES inputs by county for 2017 NEI and 2016 modeling, and 2) Make adjustments to reduce potentially overestimated populations.

Population: 2017 results were developed from new registration data obtained by ERG and 2016 results are an interpolation between 2014 and 2017 data.

Age Distribution: 2016 results were developed directly from the 2017 age distributions.

Fuel Type Splits were computed for 2017 results only, as were the GVWR summary for US Counties, minus PR.

Codes: 1 = gas; 2 = D = diesel; 3 = e85; and 9 = electric for Source Types: 21, 31 and 32 (LDV)

Scenarios for Light Duty Vehicle Populations:

Scenario 1 = unadjusted

Scenario 2 = remove antiques

Scenario 3 = Apply NJ-based adjustments

Scenario 4 = apply NJ adjustment and remove remaining antiques

Added a new data field for Antique Vehicles; approximately, 0.8% of LDV are registered antiques (2.3M).

It’s been thought that Scenario 2 will go into V1 however, EPA wants to review more. The average age of passenger cars has a bigger impact from 6% adjustment than antique removals. Also, registration rules may vary across the states.

This default methodology will only be used for States that did NOT submit anything and as requested by some, guidance documentation is needed to help use in future modeling.

Data is expected to become final in March or April.

There was also a discussion between a few states (e.g., Maine) on how to work with their DOT to obtain VIN data, as many have a difficult time getting registration data from their DOT/DMV offices. Some states have “agreements” in place with their DOT agency and were asked to share with the group so others may look into this with their DOT agencies. However, this can be tricky, since VIN Decode contractor data cannot be shared and it’s not public information. Maine has provided some of their documents (2015_DSA_signed.pdf, BMV_DPPA.doc and Chapter10 DPPA_Rules.doc in the dropbox) and they have been included in the dropbox/sharefile above. If other states share their MOU agreement, it will be passed along to the Workgroup.

Gil (GA EPD) mentioned concerns over possible adjustments of age distribution/population data for conformity. After our call he sent an email explaining his point was “in conformity you are comparing emissions from current projects with motor vehicle emissions limits from maintenance and non-attainment SIPs. Right now if it is really true and age distributions are going to be leaning younger (average age lower) and populations drop then the emissions if you use this data for conformity will be lower but the budgets you are going to compare with will stay higher, hence easier to demonstrate. However, if you are ALREADY able to do this with what you have, then you could keep using the "older and more numerous vehicle" databases and say even with these "conservatively high" estimates, we are below limits, making the demonstration stronger by keeping what you have. So with conformity is a win-win. Now, if you are having trouble meeting budgets then it is a tighter issue. For us (GA), it is the former where we are in good shape with what we have.

The other point was SIP development. In SIP development for maintenance and attainment, two things are important. One is showing a downward trend over time and the other is inventory. Once again, if you keep what you have and the trend is downward, you can say that even with these "higher conservative" assumptions and inventories, you still have downward trends and higher emissions levels but will achieve attainment or maintain levels of the relevant pollutant (ozone the biggest issue).” If anyone needs more explanation, you may contact Gil Grodzinsky, from GA EPD.

January 17, 2019

Attendees : Anna Aleynick; Stacy Allen; Carla Bedenbaugh; Marc Bennett; Molly Birnbaum; Kevin Black; Christopher Bovee; Craig Butler; Logan Caldwell; Yuli Chew; Ying-Tzu Chung; Denise E. Cormier; Marc Corrigan; Louis Corsino; Susanne Cotty; Tom Dvorak; Kathleen Errington; David Fewell; Gil Grodzinsky; Joseph Jakuta; Mark Janssen; William Kenny; Urszula Kukier; Sonya Lewis-Cheatham; Zheng Li; Kuo-Jen Liao; Jin-Sheng Lin; Deborah Liu; Catherine Lucke; Mary McGarry-Barber; Tom Moore; Tim Omolewa; Todd Pasley; Steven Potter; Danny Ross; Ken Santlal; Michael Sheehan; Kira Shonkwiler; Rebecca Simpson; Aaron Slevin; Collin Smythe; Chris Trostle; Marcus Tutt; Michael Vince; Shaun Vozar; Dale Wells; Debbie Wilson; Donna Wittl; Craig Woleader; Eric Zalewsky;

Note this was during government shutdown, so no EPA or other federal agencies attended.


Today's call also included a great conversation between the Agencies on several topics, including information from Mark J on the status of the CRC project. He said that ERG is on schedule to complete their analysis by the end of January and have the report/data available in March. The baseline data will remove "Antique Cars" from the dataset, and there will be two versions: 1) without the NJ adjustment (default) and 2) with a NJ adjustment of 6%. Questions were asked about any guidance that may come about from this project and the answer was that was up to OTAQ. However, Mark hopes to pull together the documentation on the work that was done on the IHS data and perhaps present it at the National Inventory Conference; however, this may not be possible with references to IHS and issues. The question was asked if older vehicle default miles could be reduced from 5,000 mi/year; Mark replied not very easily. Overall the IHS data appears to be linked okay between cars and trucks, it's just they are not removing vehicles that are older than 30 years that may no longer be in use so this is causing the issue of overestimating emissions for the 30+ year bin. NJ and CT use both VIN and Registration data for review.

This led to a discussion where Gil (GA) mentioned that SIP and Conformity are much different from AQ Modeling, where Accuracy and Consistency are concerned. He mentioned that it is always best to be conservative for conformity and trends are often looked at before and after analysis. Project modelers are usually concerned more with accuracy, while conformity needs more consistency between the runs.

Next several states mentioned issues (VT, NJ, MA, NC) or successes (DC, PIMA) with uploading onroad data to EPA for the NEI - many think it was due to shutdown. There was also several discussion on issues with MOVES2014b and the QA Script. Denise C (Maine) mentioned that she could provide scripts to Todd in NC.

Finally, Debbie asked if anyone had any thoughts on future MOVES presentations they would like to see, or maybe even at the MARAMA Mobile Workshop. There was one response from Louisville, KY asking for Project Level Hot Spot Modeling using AERMOD. Debbie mentioned this was probably a multi-day training, but would bring it up to MARAMA Training folks. Any other suggestions may be emailed to Debbie.

December 20, 2018

Attendees : AECOM, AL, AK, AZ,Clark county, CO, CT, DE, GA, KY, LADCO, Louisville, MARAMA, MA, MD, ME, MI (DEQ), MO, Michael Baker Intl, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, Pima County, RAQC, RI, SC, Shelby county, TN, USEPA OAQPS, US EPA OTAQ, VA, Volpe, VT, WESTAR, WI, WV


1) Recap of 2016 and 2017 deadlines and next steps (Alison Eyth and Laurel Driver, EPA)

2016 Beta with documentation will be available by end of January 2019. 2016v1.0 is projected to be out in Spring of 2019. EPA requested that State Agencies submit documentation when submitting data as to how the data was created – especially for 2017 NEI. Laurel said a Word Doc is required at a minimum (excel spreadsheets may also be included) to justify data revisions. A question was asked what to do if States do not send VMT data to EPA? EPA obtains county level VMT by road type from FHWA and allocates it into source types.

2) NONROAD Beta & V1 Update (PPT) by Sarah Roberts

EPA discussed how the pollutants (NOx, VOC and PM2.5) are for the most part all going down for all States (most counties) due to adjustments to growth rates in MOVES2014b and due to control measures. Her presentation included several maps and charts showing data by sector. There was a comment on why some states (e.g., Texas) had county coloring, while most states were one solid color; this was due to the submittal by states of data at the county level, versus consistency of data revisions across the state. It was mentioned that anyone with notes in their data spreadsheets should also reference those within the Word Doc to make sure that EPA notices the notes.

3) Proposed default hoteling rate for the 2016 Platform (PPT) presented by Darrell Sonntag, OTAQ;

Current rates in the 2014 NEIv2 and 2016 Platform are considered to be a high estimate because it does not include trip ends or team drivers. EPA is working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to develop MOVES inputs using NREL’s Fleet DNA database of heavy-duty vehicles. This would be derived by multiplying the 2016 platform hoteling hours by ratio of the new/old (=0.265) along with continuing to apply a cap when it estimates more hours than truck stop spaces. The updated hoteling activity will be used where not provided by states.

This representation of hoteling does not include the off-network idling that EPA is planning to incorporate into a future version of MOVES. EPA provided this information after the webinar regarding the monthly profiles for hoteling:

EPA currently uses monthly profiles, weighted a bit to the warmer months, that were developed from 2014 MOVES CDBs, using averages from a few states that were deemed to have “good data”. The hoteling profile is based on the average for combo trucks:

Profile # Jan. Feb. March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. MOVES60 7.26% 7.09% 8.29% 8.21% 8.64% 8.99% 9.27% 9.46% 8.66% 8.77% 7.82% 7.56%

If states think the profile should look different in their area, it could be adjusted but there should be data to back up the modification. Question was asked about when new methods will be included in a new MOVES version. EPA OTAQ responded at earliest, late 2019. Question from NY on hoteling hours: will their re-allocation of hours impact the application of the new method? A: the adjustment would be applied to the previously provided hours and states will have the opportunity to reevaluate the new numbers prior to their use.

4) Update on CRC project A-115: Improving Vehicle Populations & VIN Decode Methodology (PPT) by Mark Janssen, LADCO with a Q&A on how to proceed with information obtained from the project.

This was a great discussion that unfortunately exceeded 1.5 hours; however, several people were able to stay online and discuss further. Proposal by VIN Workgroup: Make an adjustment to the vehicle counts and age distributions to account for IHS overcount. List of reasons shown in presentation.

This presentation gave a lot of background data on the following scenarios that are being developed by ERG with the 2017 IHS data that may be used to reduce vehicle counts based on antique vehicle plates and a 6% reduction of vehicles 30+years based on the NJ data analysis. ERG will provide 3 versions of vehicle count data based on 1) without antique cars; 2) 6% average reduction of LDGV and 3) both. An unadjusted version will also be provided. These data sets are expected sometime in mid-January - states will be able to review the data once available.

There was a lively discussion between many states (NJ, GA, CT, NC, MD) and EPA on the impact of the VIN study and how to make it better for the future. EPA is not comfortable with using a 6%reduction across the board for all states based on one State (NJ); however, it was brought to their attention that MOVES has information based on a single state (AZ I/M program) that is also very outdated.

“IHS has different rules for different states”, “antique registration rules vary by state”, “what do states think about the adjustment?” (EPA) “variation but a consistent bias” (LADCO) NC noted that IHS data was 9% higher for some categories in 2014. Note that EPA is not using state-specific age distributions for long-haul trucks and intercity buses.

Q: Region Specific Registration (CT) – told to lump year zero cars (EPA) – need more input from this question.

Q: VIN Categories by MD; mileage accumulation rates? – need more input for this question

There was also a discussion on how this study may impact future emissions estimates when in about 10 years 30 year old vehicles will have Tier2 emission rates, but vehicles older than 30 years have higher emission rates. EPA noted that computing and modeling resources were allocated to estimating emissions for the bulk of the actively operating vehicles, which are newer than 30 years.

It should be noted that when the 2014 passenger car data used for 2014NEIv2 was compared with the FHWA highway statistics for 2014 vehicle counts, the IHS data were not always higher and were sometimes about the same or lower than the FHWA reported data, which is submitted to FHWA by state DOTs.

Once the data from the project become available, states will have the opportunity to indicate via a survey how they would like the VIN data project results to be used in 2016v1 and 2017NEI. It will take a few months for the 2017 NEI onroad inputs to be finalized, but the 2016v1 inputs need to be finalized in the February timeframe so that is on a shorter schedule.

November 15, 2018

Attendees : AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FHWA, GA, KY, LADCO, MARAMA, MA, MD, ME, MI (DEQ), MN, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH PA, Pima County, RI, SC, Shelby county, TN, USEPA OAQPS, US EPA OTAQ, VA, WESTAR, WI, WV


Sharefile: November Files are here:



EPA Update (Alison Eyth, EPA)

Alison did a review on the Onroad and Nonroad emissions available for 2016, 2023 and 2028. She provided links to where the data summaries and numerous maps were located on the EPA FTP server. Both table data and bar chart graphs were shared with the group. Even though her presentation focused on NOx she mentioned other pollutants were on the FTP site. It was mentioned that spatial distribution is the same but emissions are lower from 2016 to 2028. Alison then spoke about Nonroad Beta emissions that were calculated using MOVES2014b and did not include any state specific inputs.

V1 updates for Nonroad are due by January 15th – if you see anything strange with your state data, contact Alison or Sarah Roberts, as soon as possible. The final revisions for Onroad may be delayed just a bit due to new vehicle population by age from the 2017 data being processed currently.

VIN Decode Project Update (Mark Janssen, LADCO)

ERG has ordered the 2017 IHS data and will process the age distribution data to submit to EPA by early January. States should work with Mark on any updates for VIN decoding data.

Revised Tampering CAA Policy information:

FYI - EPA plans update to Clean Air Act (“Act”) enforcement policy concerning vehicle and engine tampering and aftermarket defeat devices. This policy will be called the “EPA Tampering Policy.” Alternate Fuel vehicles Info from EPA (see PDF of email from EPA Mobile to MARAMA dated November 5, 2018)

October 18, 2018

Attendees : AECOM, Clark county, CO, CRC, CT, DC, DE, ERG, GA, IL, KC, LADCO, Louisville, MARAMA, MA, MD, ME, MI (DEQ), MN, MPCA, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH PA, RI, SC, TN, USEPA OAQPS, VA, WESTAR, WI

Files October Files are here:



VIN Decode Project Update (Mark Janssen, LADCO and Alison DenBleyker, ERG)

Workgroup goal is to review existing methodologies and data that states and EPA currently use to generate age distributions and populations for light duty vehicles. The group would then provide recommendations to EPA, CRC, and States about how their processes can be improved. ERG was hired by CRC to decode the 2017 VINS and create age distributions for the 2016 collaborative and 2017 NEI.

Mark gave an update on the work being done on the VIN Decode project and the issues discovered when reviewing data received from a contractor (ERG & IHS). The workgroup compared state and contractor VIN decodes to understand what vehicle makes and models are making a difference with age distribution. There was a difference between the contractor data and State data at various time periods. The biggest difference was seen for older vehicles and especially vehicles 30+ years old. The reasons suggested for the difference might be due to:

1) Contractor files include older vehicles that were no longer on the road (this is probably the most important as it biases the average age older as older vehicles are more likely to be retired)

2) State registration data being collected only through a part of the year (e.g., July vs. December) and

3) the 30 year mark included all vehicles older than 30 years

It is very important to collect the snapshot registration data at the correct time interval since this can also make a difference. For example, a state asked for 2014 data, but actually got 2015 data by the time it was completed.

Mark mentioned there is no need for States to learn VIN Decoding now since it’s a very complicated process and there are some states already involved in the process. However, if any state has additional data that they can provide that is not based on IHS data that would be helpful. The table should include State, County, Make, Model, Year, Fuel Type, Source Type and Count.

It was mentioned that CarFax reports are good for comparing VIN data, and another solution would be for States to go to IHS and give them VINS that were wrong. However, this could be a long and tedious process that many states do not have the time or budget to do.

EPA Update (Alison Eyth, EPA OAQPS)

Share results of the activity data preparation for 2023 and 2028 Alison did a presentation on Future Year VMT Approach, where the 2016 Default VMT was projected to 2023 and 2028 based on AEO2018 data down to the SCC level. The factors differed by vehicle type and fuels. An adjustment was applied based on projected human population growth. Default future year VPOP was computed by applying 2016 VMT/VPOP ratios to the future year VMT. She also mentioned Hoteling was computed by applying final 2016 VMT/hoteling hour ratios to future year VMT. NJ submitted state specific hoteling hours and supplied an APU fraction of 30% for all years. Also, several States/agencies submitted state specific VMT/VPOP that was used to replace the default data.

An interesting item shown during the presentation was how LD Gas vehicles growth almost flat-lined for future years, which was expected due to the large increase in Electric vehicles in the future. However, overall there are less than 3% of electric vehicles when compared to the larger number of gasoline powered, so the impact will not be as significant as it may seem. Also, the large percent increase in light commercial truck VMT is due to the large projected growth of diesel. This was shown on maps that had “pop outs” of specific states (OH, NC, WI, GA) due to state supplied data for some vehicle types, like Short Haul Truck VMT in 2028.

Next month will be a presentation on emissions data for 2023 and 2028 using SMOKE-MOVES and the data may be provided a few days before the next webinar for States to review and ask questions during the call. As always, EPA has requested that if anything looks strange to let them know. There will not be any additional revisions done to the Beta version, but states have until mid to late January (specific date tbd) to supply any additional updates for V1.

During this discussion, Mohamed Khan, from MDE, mentioned that he sent a question to the MOVES Team about Vehicle Registration data cut off so MDE could request the MVA to supply the correct registration data. He was specifically asking about the MOBILE requirement that required the data to be as of July 1st of the year being modeled. Here is the response from EPA MOVES Team (dated August 25, 2016):

The MOBILE model handled age distributions differently than MOVES does in order to include the difference in age distributions in the emissions estimates for January and July. MOVES does not account for these small differences due to differences in age distribution from month to month. In MOVES, you can use registration data collected at any point during the calendar year of the analysis to represent emissions during that year. The most important thing is that you are consistent in the way you apply registration data across all the runs you are comparing (e.g., the data come from the same month for your base year and your attainment year, etc.).

September 20, 2018

Attendees : AL, AK, Clark county, CO, CT, DC, DE, GA, IL, LADCO, MARAMA, MA, MD, ME, MI (DOT+DEQ), MN, NC, NJ, NY, PA, Pima County, SC, SEMCOG, Shelby county, TN, USEPA OAQPS, VA, VT, WI, WV


September Presentations File & August Notes are here: Dropbox: All files from 2018 webinars and earlier:


2016 Onroad Beta Update and Future Year Projection Approaches.

Summary and maps are available here:

Alison mentioned that EPA is still working on documentation

Comparing 2014 with 2016 data showed lower emissions in 2016 for all pollutants. Alison then showed a graph by Mode and also by State – again, most modes showed a decrease between 2014 to 2016, except for RPH for NOx. There was not much difference between 2016 Alpha and Beta.

Spatial surrogates were updated to use 2016 data for on-roadway emissions. It was mentioned that county total emissions do not change due to On-network surrogate changes. Surrogates only impact distribution within counties, not total emissions. Alison showed a map that had hoteling emission changes in Beta from both surrogate changes and changes in activity. Most increases were seen east of the Mississippi but there were some increases in Colorado and many decreases across the US.

Projection factors for VMT are based on AEO2018. Diesel and Electric vehicles are projected to grow. LD VMT growth is adjusted based on human population growth.

Many questions were raised about how OTAQ takes on approach of future VMT based on more hybrid/electric vehicles and also, how do they assume Propane/CNG emissions for conversion of buses? E85 Placeholder mentioned by Joseph J. Julie mentioned that school buses are usually not a huge piece of the inventory. Todd from NC asked if Ann Arbor is looking into electric vehicles becoming a larger group and factor? Electric vehicles are only included in MOVES for light duty vehicles - and emissions are only from brake and tire wear.

Q? Projection factors based on AEO2018 override the data submitted by states/counties for these years? A: No, state data overrides default projections.

Q? Why is diesel vehicles both LD and buses VMT expected to increase so much through 2028? A: AEO predicts this. Julie mentioned that this happened in 2011 also. It is a small portion of inventory so impacts are small.

Q? Is VW settlement factored in? A: not directly. If states have specific changes resulting from this, include those impacts in NEI or in projected activity data.

Q? VMT projected to increase throughout the nation through all demographic groups? A: No information on demographic groups is included.

Q? Anything on Waste Vehicles using CNG? A: CNG is only included in MOVES for transit buses. Some have tried to emulate the use of other fuels and combinations not currently supported by MOVES.

Q? Impact from people driving more/less due to habits – are people driving less? A: Past year data are actuals, and future year data are predicted by AEO. We don't have an indication that people are driving less, but the LD growth rates are low.

Any other questions can be submitted to Alison and/or for further review.

Next Steps:

1. Once VMT projection method is confirmed, compute the 2023 and 2028 VMT

2. Compute VPOP and hoteling based on new VMT

3. Fold in any state-provided activity data

4. .Compute emissions for 2023 and 2028 with SMOKE-MOVES

5. Quality assure future year emissions vs base year

6. Release data and comparisons

7. Develop beta documentation

Note: Also working on nonroad - results for a few counties to be presented to that workgroup. This workgroup can be updated once national modeling is complete.

VIN Decode Project Update (Mark Janssen, LADCO)

Mark has a workgroup that is working with HIS and the State of NJ to remove anomalies and obtain a cleaner VIN Decode database for use in the 2016 data. There may possibly be a 10%+ decrease in LD Emissions due to differences in age distribution representation in 2014. There will be an updated presentation next month on the status of the VIN project.

August 16, 2018

Attendees : AECOM, Allegheny County, AL, AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FHWA, GA, Kansas City, LADCO, Louisville, MARAMA, MA, MD, ME, MI, Michael Baker International, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, Pima County, SC, SEMCOG, Shelby county, TN, TX, U. Denver, Univ of Md, USEPA OAQPS, OR, VA, WI, WV


August Presentations Files are here:



Upcoming Webinar

EPA Update

  • Presentation by EPA gave an update and overview of emission sources for 2016 Onroad Beta and included several good maps. Note: The scales on maps are not consistent due to size of scale and pollutants. One type of map shown was gridded total VMT by gas or diesel. High activity data was shown in urban areas, and interstates with diesel are shown well too.

  • Proposed hoteling adjustment factors for 2016 beta were computed using the same approach as 2014v2, except that the maximum possible hours are increased by 24 because 2016 is a leap year. The proposed hours are available in the spreadsheet 2016_beta_hotelling_comparison_080918.xlsx which is provided and posted here:

  • Please review these data for your state or county or responsibility and confirm whether you would like counties with more hours than can be accounted for through known parking spaces to be reduced down to the maximum number of hours attainable with known parking spaces.

  • Notes: Illegal parking areas are not included so EPA asked states to once again check so hoteling is not overestimated. Dale Wells (CO) mentioned that they may be leaning toward not doing an adjustment and EPA is open to not adjusting if the State’s request.

  • MARAMA is providing a Survey Monkey question to allow states to specify whether they would like adjustments made to over subscribed counties in their state: Please respond by August 24. All states should provide feedback for their entire state (coordinate internally) or the default option (1) to perform adjustments will be chosen.

Presentation by: Gary Bishop, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Denver

  • Title: Measuring Fuel Specific Emission Factors from In-use Vehicles

  • Biography:
    • B.S. in Chemistry, Berry College, Mt. Berry, Georgia, 1978.
    • M.S. in Bio Physical Chemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1986.
    • Ph.D. in Bio Physical Chemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1986.
    • Since 1987 Gary has been employed as a Research Scientist at the University of Denver working with Donald Stedman and his group. They have specialized in developing spectroscopic instrumentation capable of remotely detecting vehicle exhaust. This equipment has been used to measure light-duty vehicle fleets in more than 21 countries and in more than 30 US locations. In addition this group has used these instruments to measured heavy-duty diesel trucks, commercial aircraft in London, snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park and line-haul locomotives in Nebraska. This work has resulted in coauthoring 10 patents and more than 50 peer reviewed journal publications.

  • An interesting topic and discussion on the On-road Remote Vehicle Exhaust Sensor (FEAT) an emissions spectrometer to measure exhaust as vehicles drive by source via light wavelengths. Along with speeds and acceleration data collected a camera obtains license plate photos which in turn are used to collect vehicle registration data.

  • Along with vehicles (heavy-duty trucks), they have collected information on aircraft, locomotives, snowmobiles, and even ocean going ships moving under a bridge in Vancouver.

  • They don’t use Lasers; it’s simpler than that – absorption spectroscopy, which measures absorptions using infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths.

  • Some of the results from the collection of data over the past 30 years (40-50 hours of data for 20 – 30,000 vehicles) shows that fleet turnover may not be as big of a benefit as in the past since vehicles are cleaner, especially the past 10 years, so the benefit is smaller, including cold start emissions from catalytic convertors, which is a minor source now.

  • More information can be found at this website which has all the data and reports that were discussed during today’s webinar:

July 19, 2018

Attendees : AK, AL, Allegheny County, AZ, CA, CenSARA, Clark County, CO, CT, FHWA, GA, KY, MA, MARAMA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MPCA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OAQPS, OH, OR, Pima, PA, SC, SEMCOG, Shelby, TN, TX, UMD, VA, VT, WI, WV



Using near-road observations of CO, NOy, and CO2¬ to investigate emissions from vehicles: Evidence for strong ambient temperature dependence given by Dolly Hall, U of MD Graduate Research Assistant to Russ Dickerson

  • Bio: Dolly Hall graduated from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science in 2014 with a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry. Dolly joined the Russell Dickerson research group within the department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science at the University of Maryland College Park in 2014 as a graduate research assistant with a focus in atmospheric chemistry. She works closely with surface observations collected at two near-road sites within the Baltimore-Washington region, one along I-95 in Maryland and the other along DC-295 within the District of Columbia. Her recent work focuses on the correlations of NOx with CO and CO¬2 and how these correlations vary with ambient temperature to better understand discrepancies reported in numerous studies between observations of NOx and the National Emissions Inventory.

  • Dolly's presentation discussed the impact of temperatures on pollutants around the Maryland / DC area.

  • This analysis suggests that the default temperature adjustment factor of unity needs to be reexamined

  • Mobile NOx emissions are lower at higher temperatures; we are currently working on summer data, when O3 is of concern. (He et al. (2013) found NOx emissions reported by the CEMS peaked on hot days, making impact of EGU NOx emissions on summer O3 even more important at higher temperatures.)

  • These results may be relevant to attainment strategies

  • Adjusting NOx emissions for temperature impact may help in part to resolve this discrepancy

  • When asked about humidity sensitivity, it was indicated that NOx seemed to have a direct correlation and was lower with higher humidity. The parameter NOy is total reactive nitrogen, and “is defined as of all oxides of nitrogen in which the oxidation state of the N atom is +2 or greater, ie, the sum of all reactive nitrogen oxides including NOx (NO + NO2) and other nitrogen oxides referred to as NOz. The major components of NOz include nitrous acids [nitric acid (HNO3), and nitrous acid (HONO)], organic nitrates [peroxyl acetyl nitrate (PAN), methyl peroxyl acetyl nitrate (MPAN), and peroxyl propionyl nitrate, (PPN)], and particulate nitrates. NO + NO2 + NOz = NOy. Source:

  • Dolly mentioned that NOy and NOx are equivalent along the highway. Russ Dickerson mentioned that MOVES NOx is too high in the summer and about right in the winter, while CO is substantially overestimated in MOVES during winter analyses.

EPA Update on activity data

Next steps for EPA:

  • We will be converting all of the data to SCC resolution

  • We will do some additional QA / analysis of the data at SCC-level (if others want to help, your thoughts are welcome – we can send the data by SCC once available)

  • We will prepare a new spatial surrogate for extended idling using updated data from Maine, Pima county, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Georgia.

  • We will reanalyze the extended idling hours vs spaces using the updated data [hopefully before August call]

  • Once we are satisfied with the activity data (late August?), we will run SMOKE-MOVES for 2016, project the activity to 2023 and 2028, and then run SMOKE-MOVES for the future years (September).

Upcoming webinar:

June 21, 2018


Intro (MARAMA)

EPA Update (Alison Eyth, EPA)

Hoteling Update (Debbie, MARAMA)

LADCO Update (Mark Janssen, LADCO)

Overview of MOVES FACA Webinar (Dale Wells, CO)

Reminder NTAQS in Newark NJ, August 7-8 – see attached announcement & draft agenda

Attendees AL, AK, AZ, CO, CT, GA, LADCO, ME, MARAMA, MD, UMC, MA, OTAQ, MI, MN, MO, Clark County, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OAQPS, OR, Pima, A. Kovacevic, S. Vozar, PA, SC, Shelby, KC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI

Action Items from last meeting

1)       Debbie to provide notes and share files and links. – Updated notes from May will be posted with June files. Sharefile for May presentations:

2) Alison to provide files or links for activity data. – done Here is a link that EPA provided that includes the activity data for Hoteling: The file for hoteling parking spots is located in this file: 2016_PIL_16Aug.xlsx

3) States should review their hoteling location/spots and activity data for 2016 data analysis. June 30th is the next deadline for 2016 Beta.


Presentations in Dropbox:

Presentations in Sharefile: June Presentations Files are here:

A. Eyth presentation:

Overview of MOVES FACA Review Workgroup on June 13, 2018 by Dale Wells, CO

  • MOVES2014b released this summer - thiis is a minor MOVES release that doesn’t impact onroad inventories
  • Improves estimates of nonroad emissions (mostly decreases) - Updates growth, Tier 4 engine populations and emission rates
  • Heavy-Duty Vehicle Activity in MOVES
  • Update: Revising Start/Soak Relationships for Light-Duty Gaseous Emissions
    • Shared graph of NOx emissions almost double for soak; then mentioned that vehicle starts/vehicle will decrease from approx. 5.5 to 4 starts/vehicle so the increase in NOx will not be as large as shown in graph.
    • Presentation and File showing additional pollutants for hot soak are on the temporary Sharefile location listed above.

May 31, 2018

Note alternative date for this call due to inventory training in RTP on regular date.




  • Update on preparing for beta version and on 2016 nonroad emissions (Alison Eyth, EPA)
  • Update on VIN decoding for 2016 platform (Mark Janssen, LADCO)
  • Summary of Recent Truck Hoteling Studies (Marcus T., NJ DEP)
  • Truck Hoteling in Pennsylvania (Chris T., PA DEP)
  • Key Factors in Correctly Identify Truck Parking (Gil G. GA EPD)
  • Summary of findings and recommendations and discussion (Julie, Debbie, All)

Acition Items

  • Debbie to provide notes and links
  • Alison to provide files/links to activity data
  • States review their hoteling hours (truck stops) and the activity data used. Alternative data provided by June 30 can be incorporated into beta; data later than that can go into v1.0 run.


Presentations are available in the Dropbox:

1. Update on preparing for beta version and on 2016 nonroad emissions (Alison Eyth, EPA)

Within this presentation, there is a list of states that submitted activity data; last call for State activity data to be included in the 2016 Beta analysis is June 30, 2018. No states submitted hoteling data for 2016; therefore a ratio using VMT was used to estimate 2016 from 2014 data.

EPA has asked states to look over their activity data that was submitted, as several areas had changes much greater than 10% from the 2016 Alpha data. West Virginia was mentioned as a state that had extremely different (lower) VPOP data. EPA had requested 2023 and 2028 data; Susanne Cotty, PAG AZ, asked if 2022 data would be accepted since they did not have 2023 and Alison said yes they could use it. Question was then asked about if there was time to do both 2023 and 2028 runs; the response was that EPA is still waiting on news of the budget before that determination is made.

Regarding nonroad emissions in the alpha version: EPA recently determined that the 2016 nonroad emissions originally incorporated into the alpha version were really 2014 emissions prepared using 2016 meteorology and fuels. Corrected emissions have been posted here:

2. Update on VIN decoding for 2016 platform (Mark Janssen, LADCO)

CRC is sponsoring a project VIN decoding for the 2016 platform. The first part of this project is to work with states on differences between the VINs decoded for 2014 as compared to state DOT submissions. Mark discussed that engine certification is not straight forward and there is nothing in the VIN about certification for specific vehicles. He presented a lot of graphs that showed where EPA estimates were higher than the States and there is a persistent bias with older vehicles. There was a discussion on possible reasons for the differences, including June 1 vs. July 1 year, accident vehicles that are still being accounted for, and vehicles that may leave the state for various reasons (e.g., scrapped). Mark was not ready to speculate on any of this, since the data is very raw and still under review; however, he did mention that the “orange line (States) may be more representative than blue (EPA)”. Brian Timin (NC, EPA) asked where the Engine Certification Fractions by Make and Model graph came from: OTAQ, Dave Brzezinski and Megan Beardsley. Steve (CT) mentioned that older/antique cars may also impact totals; however, any vehicle >30 years old are lumped into one number. Mark also mentioned that the data shown in some of the graphs came from one single state, but kept the state anonymous. There are a lot of unknowns and waiting for report before it will be finalized.

3. Summary of Recent Truck Hoteling Studies (Marcus T., NJ DEP)

4. Truck Hoteling in Pennsylvania (Chris T., PA DEP)

5. Key Factors in Correctly Identify Truck Parking (Gil G. GA EPD)

These presentations showed the differences of EPA versus Actual parking spaces for several areas within the 3 states (NJ, PA and GA) along with a methodology of using Google Maps to verify the data. The development of accurate MOVES Hoteling inputs is a complex issue. Truckers park in non-designated parking areas due to several reasons, which include truck parking shortage (as much as 100%), safety and convenience. There also appears to be a change in truck idling locations and activity over the past decade or so as Warehouse shuttling may have altered truck hoteling practices.

One example in PA indicated there may be an underestimation at retail areas (Walmart, Hotels, Casino) and Rest Stops while there was an overestimation at Travel Plazas that were double counted due to different names (TA vs Petro) for the same location in Luzerne County, PA. An example in GA showed a truck fueling location that is no longer there when verified with Google Maps. Many other sources/references used to validate parking areas were included in the presentations.

6. Summary of findings and recommendations and discussion (Julie, Debbie, All)

Presentation: 4-EPA Hoteling Review DW053118.pptx

a.       Encourage more States to do their own studies and verify the data that EPA is using in the 2014NEIv2 and 2016 Platform is the best available.

b.       States should review the parking file (see file: 2016_PIL_16Aug.xls) for their counties to see if parking spaces are being overestimated / underestimated (truncated). Several methodologies were presented during the webinar to help States learn how to conduct similar reviews.

c.       Encourage EPA to discontinue the practice of truncating emissions where parking spaces are lacking. Rather we suggest that hoteling hours and resulting emissions be calculated based on VMT and where parking spaces cannot be identified for the “extra” emissions should be spread evenly on the grid spaces with interstates within each county. [Note from EPA: this suggested approach is not technically feasible, so we will need to work together to develop an alternative approach for spatial allocation - perhaps focused on the problematic counties.]

Allocations of hoteling by rural and urban restricted access truck VMT may be the most accurate approach. Adjustments for parking spaces may significantly underestimate hoteling emissions. Using Google Maps to locate parking areas and for ground truth is one method to verify truck parking spots for hoteling.

Here is a link that EPA provided that includes the activity data for Hoteling:

The file for hoteling parking spots is located in this file in the same location: 2016_PIL_16Aug.xlsx

April 19, 2018


  • Updated Evaluation of MOVES2014 with Real World Measurements (Darrell Sonntag, USEPA)
  • Overview of CRC Real World Emissions Workshop - March 2018 (Julie McDill)
  • Submitting 2016 activity data for beta version (Alison Eyth)
  • Action items from last call



1. Updated Evaluation of MOVES2014 with Real World Measurements – Darrell Sonntag (USEPA)

Motivation: Modeled NOx was higher in summer months than observed monitored data.

MOVES Project-scale – MOVES emission rates compare well to University of Denver RSD data when using the location-specific MOVES inputs MOVES national scale – Using the MOVES default inputs show clear over-prediction. Two key inputs contribute the most difference between project-level and county/national inventory estimates

  • Vehicle age: younger fleets at measurement sites than in national default county-level inputs
  • Vehicle operation: vehicle operation (speeds/acceleration) milder at measurement sites than in the national default county-level inputs

An analysis of 3 studies (2 PEMS, 1 Roadside) suggests high power light-duty NOx rates are worth further evaluation – NOx-VSP trends in MOVES are steeper at high power than measured for:

  • Tier 1 passenger cars and trucks
  • Tier 2 passenger trucks
  • MOVES estimates Tier 2 trucks have higher emissions than Tier 2 cars. This is not observed in the PEMS and RSD data They are looking into why this happened, since it should not be.

2. CRC Real World Emissions Workshop - March 2018 – An overview – Julie McDill (MARAMA)

On March 19-21 Julie McDill attended the Coordinating Research Council Meeting on Real Life Mobile Emissions held in Anaheim, CA. Real life mobile emissions can now be measured using portable systems (PEMS) that are small and light enough to be carried inside a motor vehicle during a driving test, rather than on the stationary rollers of a dynamometer that only simulates real-world driving. Results from PEMS show that actual emission factors and overall mobile emissions may be significantly different than estimated using dynamometer simulations and used in the MOVES Model. PEMS offer a more realistic view of emissions which are more variable than was prior understood. Real World emissions are influenced by Vehicle technologies, Driving styles and External environment. Light Duty (LD) NOX Emissions from 2008 to 2016 are down 55%, however black carbon emissions are unchanged. Light Duty (LD) emissions are now dominated by emissions during cold starts. All other LD processes, including running emission, don’t contribute much to total NOX emissions.

Actual Heavy Duty (HD) NOX emissions exceed the certification standard of 0.2 g/bhp and range between 0.2 -> 3.25 g/bhp. Part, but not all, of this excess is due to the use of banked credits. Heavy Duty (HD) emissions vary by model year with first generation (2013) HD NOX emission higher than later Model years (2016). DPF may be less efficient at oxidizing NOX due to better tuning of control systems. Heavy Duty emissions are affected by speed with Particle Number (PN) increasing and NOX decreasing at high speeds. HD NOX emissions are generally higher when idling (0.3 g/bhp) Use of Ethanol & biofuel increased dramatically after 2005 renewable fuel std. However, it is still less than ½ of biofuel target for 2022. Ethanol enriched fuel raises the fuel octane. As a result aromatics are no longer needed to achieve adequate octane levels to enhance performance. This shift resulted in 5% Ozone reduction but increased ambient concentration of ultrafine particle. Uncertain of how PM2.5 is affected. – Change in emissions resulting from ethanol added to fuel:

  • Higher SOA - Ethanol increases SOA formation in situations when non-oxidation reactions occur – some (like E20) create a lot of SOA.
  • Lower CO & Benzene
  • Higher aldehydes – examples: Formaldehyde & Acetaldehyde Carbonyls Carbon with double bond to oxygen and 2 other attachments Aldehydes have a High MIR - Reactive precursor for ozone. Motor vehicles major sources.
  • Lower toxicity because lower BTEX
  • Photochemical models lack parameters to predict the effect of biofuels on ambient PM2.5 mass concentration.

3. Submitting activity data - deadline and methods – Alison Eyth (USEPA)

  • Original date for 2016 Activity data was April 15, but this has been relaxed to May 15 – Voluntary to submit
  • Activity data can be provided in SMOKE FF10 format or by county and HPMSvtype in spreadsheets
  • Data can be emailed to
  • Activity data for states that do not provide data will be projected to 2016 using a default approach All 2014 NEI v2 Onroad and Nonroad supporting data are available. See presentation for links to download information / data files. Output for each sector should be available by end of April. FY18 budget not yet determined for Platform 2016
  • a summary of VMT by HPMSVtype for each county is available, and a comparison to what S/Ls have provided so far

4. . Action items from the last call:

a.       Providing the hoteling Shapefile currently in use: Same file in spreadsheet format is uploaded to dropbox and sharefile

b.       Provide SCC descriptions for activity data:

March 15, 2018


1.       Overview of OTAQ MOVES FACA of March 7th (Dale Wells)

2.       Update on CRC VIN Decode (Mark Janssen)

3.       Update on MOVES2014b (Sarah Roberts)

4.       Methods for submission of 2016 VMT (Alison Eyth)

5.       Hoteling adjustments in 2014NEIv2 (Alison Eyth)

6.       Posted 2014/2015/2016 emissions ( Alison Eyth)

Materials are available in Dropbox:


4. Submission of VMT

States have formats other than by SCC, such as HPMS vehicle types. These will be accepted. 2016 activity data is due by May 15. No other updates will be implemented for beta, but new runs will be performed for v1 based on output of CRC project. These would include any other changes for which a need is identified.

6. 2014/15/16 emissions are posted

The ancillary data and SMOKE set up for all three years is here: The year-specific emissions are in these directories:

February 15, 2018


  • Development of 2016 onroad alpha emissions (Alison Eyth)
  • Review of which states and locals plan to submit 2016 inputs (Julie McDill)
  • CRC project for 2016 VIN-decoding (Mark Janssen)


1. 2016 Alpha Onroad Emissions Presentation

  • 2016 VMT was projected from 2014v2 VMT using state-urban, state-rural factors except where those factors proved unreasonable
  • 2014v2 ratios of VMT to hoteling and VMT to VPOP were preserved in 2016.
  • Pollutant reductions from 2014 to 2016: CO -15%, NH3 -6%, NOX -16%, PM10 -9%, PM2.5 -19%, SO2 -3%, VOC – 16%

2. Summary of state submission plans for 2016 onroad data

3. Developing age distributions for 2016

  • VIN Decode for Age distribution: More time required to negotiate with IHS and ERG on the 2016 VIN decode. Prices up since the 2011 work(30%) and CRC funds are limited. Plan to decode the Light Duty Vehicles as we did in 2011 and EPA did in 2014. We will not be able to get a national age distribution for Heavy Duty Vehicles. Work with OAQPS to get county groups updated. Project complete in late summer/September.
  • State/IHS comparison: Inadequate resources to compare state and IHS methodologies to collect and interpret VINs with the A-115 project. OTAQ had a proprietary copy of the age distributions that drove the 2014 work. It does not have individual VINS but does have vehicle counts by make, model, and year with the assumed MOVES classification. Mark working folks who signed up for the comparison group to look at the differences in methodology and hopefully have report by June 1st to inform 2016 work.

4. Glider trucks - an impromptu conversation was held

5. Next call: March 15 at 2 Eastern / 1PM CEN / Noon MTN / 11AM PAC

January 18, 2018


  • Overview of 2016 Collaborative Onroad Workgroup - Alison Eyth (OAQPS)
  • Options for developing 2016 alpha version activity data – Alison Eyth (OAQPS)


Presentation is available here: Options for developing 2016 activity data

1.       Initiation of the 2016 collaborative onroad workgroup - Alison Eyth – (Presentation available) Alison presented on options to create an alpha 2016 onroad inventory by adjusting 2014v2 MOVES inputs using FHWA data for 2016 which was recently released. After the options were presented, the workgroup was polled. The percent of states on the call that preferred each of the 4 options described by Alison are as follows:

  • Option 1 - State+road type (33 %)
  • Option 2 - State+urban, State+rural (40 %)
  • Option 3 - State overall (19%)
  • Option 4 - State+restricted, State+unrestricted (5%)

By a narrow margin, the workgroup prefers option 2.

2.       Please complete a questionaire concerning state plans to submit state specific 2016 data. Please visit the link below by COB Feb 1 to indicate what data you will submit (2016 VMT, VPOP, Hoteling hours, changes to representative counties, activity data for 2023 and 2028)

Please note:

  • 2016 datasets must be provided by April 15, 2018.
  • 2023/2028 activity data by June 2018

3.       Rate mode MOVES Emission Factors The latest MOVES EF lookup tables are uploaded to UNC google drive for you to share. Please let me know if you have any question. - From: Baek, Bok Haeng []

4.       Mark Janssen (LADCO) recruited a number of states to work with CRC on the 2016 VIN decode to be used for ozone SIP planning. As part of this round they are comparing the IHS methodology used for the 2011/2014 NEI with state efforts to create age distributions from decoded VINs. Our goal is to do a county by county comparison of MOVES vehicle type population determinations between the IHS and the states and explore the reasons why they would differ. Good response so far from several states. No target as yet of when the results will be available, but will coordinate with Alison on folding results into Beta 2016 inventory.

5.       Next Call: Thurs Feb 15 @ 2PM Eastern / 1PM Cen / Noon Mtn / 11AM PAC

Workgroup Kickoff Email from Alison Eyth 1/12/2018

As the co-chairs of the 2016 collaborative onroad workgroup, Julie McDill and I would like to welcome you to the workgroup and to thank you for your willingness to participate! For your reference, the workgroup members are listed at the end of this email. We have participation throughout the country, which is great. We look forward to a productive calendar year of 2018.

Our first meeting of 2018 will be held coincident with the existing MOVES MJO workgroup, which is larger than the 2016 workgroup. Some 2016-specific meetings may be scheduled later in the year. The MOVES MJO workgroup meetings are the third Thursday of each month at 2:00 eastern, so one is scheduled for next Thursday 1/18. If you have not registered for the MOVES MJO workgroup webinars, please register here:

Our first goal for the 2016 onroad workgroup is to provide you with the 2016 alpha platform onroad emissions, as those would be a starting point for the 2016 platform, although they will be improved upon in the beta and v1 versions of the platform which will include more state-submitted data. EPA will create the 2016 alpha emissions for the community’s use and review. To create the emissions, we need both emission factors and activity data to pair with them. EPA has developed a set of 2016 emission factors that are compatible with those used to develop 2014NEIv2. To create these, fuel properties and the year of the run were updated to 2016, as were affected model years for I/M programs. For those familiar with the age distribution projections used in recent platforms, no age distribution projections were applied while creating these emission factors and instead the 2014 v2 age distributions were used as-is.

The main remaining issue to be resolved prior to creating the emissions is what activity data to use. EPA typically uses VMT and other data from FHWA for historic years. For the 2014NEI, FHWA provided county-specific VMT data by road type and this was used as the basis for creating an “EPA default” activity data set that was used for states that did not submit and for some submitting states for specific vehicle types found to have quality assurance issues. FHWA has recently provided 2016 county-specific VMT data for most road types at the same level of detail as was provided for 2014, although EPA had to fill in some data for local roads based on state total data allocated to counties based on population and data in the VM-2 table shown here: Note that FHWA is working to populate the full set of 2016 highway statistics but they are not all completed/posted yet – many attributes besides VMT will become available at this link:

Once we finished creating a county-specific dataset of VMT factors for the MOVES road types 2, 3, 4, and 5, we found a broader spread in the factors than was anticipated. We had been expecting most changes in activity from 2014 to 2016 to be within +/- 10%, but we found that some were much larger. We computed ratios specific to road type, a broader grouping of urban and rural road types, and a yet broader grouping of county overall changes. We found that some of the county total factors were as low as 0.47 and as high as 2.7. The larger changes seem to be prevalent in certain states – particularly Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin. We are thinking that perhaps some underlying method for computing the VMT was changed for those states in the intervening years, thereby making these county-level ratios incompatible with the 2014 data (see the attached 2016v2 onroad VMT projection factors.xlsx for details). It is my understanding that the FHWA VMT data actually originates with the states and is collected and collated by DOT through a process similar to how the NEI collects and collates emissions data from states. If you are a representative of one of the states with broadly changing factors and are able to find out if some change was made in your state’s reporting of VMT, that would be useful information for the workgroup to have.

In the meantime, we are looking for an alternative that would allow us to apply some factors to the 2014 activity data (which includes many state submissions and a lot of work to put it exactly into the level of detail used by MOVES) so that those data could better represent year 2016. As a possible alternative to county-specific factors, we have developed state road type-level factors that could be used to create the alpha version VMT (and VPOP, which would be derived from by retaining the VMT/VPOP ratios from 2014). These factors are shown in the attached state-road 2014-16 growth factors from VM-2.xlsx. We could apply the factors specific to road type, or the factors specific to rural roads, urban roads, or overall for the state. The overall state factors will result in the smallest changes from the 2014 VMT to the alpha version. We are interested to receive your thoughts on this. I will prepare a presentation for next Thursday’s webinar, but webinars are not always the easiest forum for discussion. So, if you have any suggestions regarding the factors to use, or another idea prior to next week’s meeting , please email Alison and Julie, and we will collate the responses prior to next week’s meeting. Note that I have sent this email using Bcc for the members to prevent long threads going to everyone’s Inboxes, but we can discuss the preferred communication methods at next week’s meeting.

Also, I soon should be able to provide the 2014NEIv2 onroad emissions and draft documentation for how they were developed – perhaps by next week’s meeting. The overall 2014NEIv2 release for all sectors was delayed due to a technical glitch, but we do plan to finalize it this month.

December 20, 2017


  • Overview of the Dec 6 MOVES FACA – Dale Wells (CO)
  • Updates to 2014NEIv2 Onroad Mobile Emissions – Alison Eyth (OAQPS)

Development of 2014NEIv2 Onroad Mobile Source Emissions