1
Organization and Background

INTRODUCTION

This report reviews the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP)—a cooperative research and development partnership formed in the year 2000 by four federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) with 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Eaton Corporation, Freightliner, Honeywell, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America).

The goal of the Partnership is to “reduce fuel usage and emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety. The aim of the Partnership is to support research, development, and demonstration that enable achieving these goals with commercially viable products and systems” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).

The 21CTP vision is “that our nation’s trucks and buses will safely and cost-effectively move larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of passengers while emitting little or no pollution and dramatically reducing the dependency on foreign oil” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).

The Partnership addresses the following “national imperatives”: “(a) Transportation in America supports the growth of our nation’s economy both nationally and globally. (b) Our nation’s transportation system supports the country’s goal of energy security. (c) Transportation in our country is clean, safe, secure, and sustainable. (d) America’s military has an agile, well-equipped, efficient force capable of rapid deployment and sustainment anywhere in the world. (e) Our nation’s transportation system is compatible with a dedicated concern for the environment” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).

The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the following elements (DOE, 2006a, p. 1):

  1. Integrated vehicle systems R&D approach that validates and deploys advanced technology as necessary, for commercial and military trucks and buses

  2. Research for engines, combustion, exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials to achieve higher efficiency and lower emissions

  3. Research focused on heavy-duty hybrid propulsion systems

  4. Research to reduce parasitic losses to achieve significantly reduced energy consumption

  5. Development of technologies to improve the safety of trucks and buses, resulting in the reduction of fatalities and injuries in truck-involved crashes

  6. Development and deployment technologies that reduce energy consumption and exhaust emissions during idling

  7. Validation, demonstration, and deployment of advanced truck and bus technologies, and growing their reliability sufficient for adoption in the commercial marketplace

Policy Considerations

Worldwide oil consumption has risen rapidly in the past few years, mainly owing to rapid economic growth. This increased demand has resulted in a rapid rise in oil prices even though production capacity has kept pace with demand and is expected to exceed demand in the coming year (2009). With the nation highly dependent on imported oil, this increase in the price of oil has put a strain on the U.S. economy. As a consequence the United States is pursuing alternative sources of fuel and attempting to increase efficiency in oil usage.

Added to the concern over high-priced oil is the concern regarding global warming. Nations around the world are beginning to place more stringent control over human-made emissions, especially greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus for the foreseeable future, there will be pressure to control and reduce greenhouse emissions.

Both the limited availability of oil and the additional pressures to reduce CO2 will have a profound impact on automotive vehicles worldwide. These forces will pressure vehicle manufacturers to make renewed efforts to reduce both fuel



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 7
1 organization and Background iNTrodUcTioN 2. Research for engines, combustion, exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials to achieve higher efficiency This report reviews the 21st Century Truck Partnership and lower emissions (21CTP)—a cooperative research and development partner- 3. Research focused on heavy-duty hybrid propulsion ship formed in the year 2000 by four federal agencies (the U.S. systems Department of Energy [DOE], U.S. Department of Transpor- 4. Research to reduce parasitic losses to achieve signifi- cantly reduced energy consumption tation [DOT], U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], and U.S. 5. Development of technologies to improve the safety of Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) with 15 industrial trucks and buses, resulting in the reduction of fatalities partners (Allison Transmission, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, and injuries in truck-involved crashes Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Eaton Corporation, Freightliner, 6. Development and deployment technologies that reduce Honeywell, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh energy consumption and exhaust emissions during Truck, PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America). idling The goal of the Partnership is to “reduce fuel usage and 7. Validation, demonstration, and deployment of advanced emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety. The aim of truck and bus technologies, and growing their reliability the Partnership is to support research, development, and dem- sufficient for adoption in the commercial marketplace onstration that enable achieving these goals with commercially viable products and systems” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1). Policy considerations The 21CTP vision is “that our nation’s trucks and buses will safely and cost-effectively move larger volumes of Worldwide oil consumption has risen rapidly in the freight and greater numbers of passengers while emitting past few years, mainly owing to rapid economic growth. little or no pollution and dramatically reducing the depen- This increased demand has resulted in a rapid rise in oil dency on foreign oil” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1). prices even though production capacity has kept pace with The Partnership addresses the following “national impera- demand and is expected to exceed demand in the coming tives”: “(a) Transportation in America supports the growth of year (2009). With the nation highly dependent on imported our nation’s economy both nationally and globally. (b) Our oil, this increase in the price of oil has put a strain on the nation’s transportation system supports the country’s goal U.S. economy. As a consequence the United States is pursu- of energy security. (c) Transportation in our country is ing alternative sources of fuel and attempting to increase clean, safe, secure, and sustainable. (d) America’s military efficiency in oil usage. has an agile, well-equipped, efficient force capable of rapid Added to the concern over high-priced oil is the concern deployment and sustainment anywhere in the world. (e) Our regarding global warming. Nations around the world are nation’s transportation system is compatible with a dedicated beginning to place more stringent control over human-made concern for the environment” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1). emissions, especially greenhouse gases such as carbon The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the dioxide (CO2). Thus for the foreseeable future, there will be following elements (DOE, 2006a, p. 1): pressure to control and reduce greenhouse emissions. Both the limited availability of oil and the additional pres- 1. Integrated vehicle systems R&D approach that validates sures to reduce CO2 will have a profound impact on automo- and deploys advanced technology as necessary, for com- tive vehicles worldwide. These forces will pressure vehicle mercial and military trucks and buses manufacturers to make renewed efforts to reduce both fuel 

OCR for page 7
 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP consumption and exhaust emissions. Light-duty-vehicle U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and EPA; a number of private companies are also manufacturers have already made significant improvements expected to join the partnership. The goal of this government- in reducing fuel consumption and even more progress in industry research program will be to develop production reducing vehicle emissions. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen prototype vehicles with the following characteristics: (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty vehicles will be significantly reduced by regulations that go into effect • Improved fuel efficiency by (1) doubling the Class 8 between 2007 and 2010. However, reductions in fuel con- long-haul truck fuel efficiency; (2) tripling the Class 2b sumption of the large commercial truck fleet have not been and Class 6 truck (delivery van) fuel efficiency; and as impressive, partly because of the growth in the number (3) tripling the Class 8 transit bus fuel efficiency of miles driven by large trucks during the past decade. Yet if • Lower emissions than expected standards for 2010 the United States is to reduce its reliance on foreign sources • Meeting or exceeding the motor carrier safety goal of of oil, it will be necessary to reduce the fuel consumption reducing truck fatalities by half • Affordability and equal or better performance than of commercial vehicles. The 21CTP can play an important today’s vehicles. role in this regard. Those goals have been updated twice since the launch of the organizational Background of the 21st century Truck program. The details of today’s goals are set out in techni- Partnership cal white papers on engine systems, heavy-duty hybrids, parasitic losses, idle reduction, and safety (DOE, 2006a, pp. In late 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) 2-3). The committee comments on the research and devel- formed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck opment (R&D) in each of those areas in each of following Partnership, which conducted an independent review of the chapters. 21CTP. This report critically examines and comments on the overall adequacy and balance of the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accomplish its goals and on progress in the Lines of Authority program, and it presents recommendations, as appropriate, The 21CTP was apparently expected to have a single which the committee believes can improve the likelihood of stream of funds to support its research, so that it could set the Partnership meeting its goals. research projects according to their likely return.2 In practice, it has not been so simple. The Partnership was at first under History the command of the DOD (the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research and Development Command). In November 2002, The 21st Century Truck Partnership was announced by that authority passed to the Department of Energy (DOE, Vice President Gore April 21, 2000, as a heavy-duty counter- 2006b, p. 4-7), specifically to the FreedomCAR and Vehicle part of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Technologies (FCVT) Program under the Office of Energy (PNGV).1 The PNGV was a cooperative program, launched Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). in 1994, that sought to develop and demonstrate the technol- The other agencies have simply moved their own exist- ogy to triple the fuel economy of U.S. passenger vehicles ing programs under the 21CTP umbrella, so DOE has little (see, for example, NRC, 2001), and continues today as the influence over the research programs of its DOT, DOD, or FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (involving the DOE, a EPA partners. DOE staff organize meetings and conference number of vehicle and fuel companies, and a nonprofit cor- calls, maintain the information-flow infrastructure (such as poration representing the Detroit-based auto manufacturers), Web sites and e-mail lists), and have led the discussions for discussed later in this chapter. and preparation of the updated 21CTP roadmap and white The launch of the 21CTP was welcomed by an earlier papers laying out Partnership goals. The management of NRC committee (NRC, 2000, p. 11): individual projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual federal agencies that have funded the work. These If this new initiative moves forward as planned, it will have a agencies use the 21CTP information-sharing infrastructure to major impact on OHVT [the DOE Office of Heavy Vehicles coordinate efforts and ensure that valuable research results Technology]. The program’s target year is 2010. The gov- ernment agencies that will be involved include DOE, the are communicated and that overlap of activities is reduced. According to the official roadmap and technical white 1James Eberhardt, Director, Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies papers of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (DOE, 2006a, (OHVT), DOE, “The 21st Century Truck, a Government-Industry Research p. 6): Partnership,” Presentation to the Committee on Review of DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, Washington, D.C., June 15, 2000; Paul Skalny, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, “The 21st Century Truck Initiative: Developing Technologies for 21st Century Trucks,” Presentation 2Personal statement to the committee by Kenneth Howden, Director, 21st to the Committee on Review of DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technolo- gies, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2000. Century Truck Partnership, April 18, 2007.

OCR for page 7
 ORGANIZATION ANd BACKGROUNd Some truck classifications used by the EPA and the DOE has been assigned to lead the federal R&D compo- nent of this program because of the close alignment of California Air Resources Board (CARB) for emissions the stated 21st Century Truck Program goals and research regulations differ from those shown in Table 1-1 and are objectives with DOE’s mission “to foster a secure and reli- discussed in the emission-related sections of this report and able energy system that is environmentally and economically in Appendix D. DOT, in its safety regulation, uses the term sustainable. . . .” Since early 1996, DOE’s FreedomCAR and “heavy truck” for vehicles above 10,000 lb GVWR (as dis- Vehicle Technologies Program (and predecessor offices), cussed in Chapter 7). In other cases in this report the VIUS in collaboration with trucking industry partners and their categories are used, in which “heavy truck” is the term used suppliers, has been funding and conducting a customer- for vehicles over 10,000 lb GVWR. focused program to research and develop technologies that The number of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks has will enable trucks, buses, and other heavy vehicles to be increased substantially as the U.S. economy has grown. Over more energy-efficient and able to use alternative fuels the period from 1970 to 2003, energy consumption by light- while simultaneously reducing emissions. DOT brings to this program its mission-oriented intelligent transportation duty trucks (less than 10,000 lb GVWR) grew 4.7 percent systems and highway transportation safety programs. DOD, annually, while that of passenger cars grew only 0.3 percent. as a major owner and operator of trucks, will define the Meanwhile, energy consumption by heavy trucks increased military mission performance requirements and will fund 3.7 percent per year. Figure 1-1 displays this divergence in appropriate dual-use and military-specific technologies so growth. Figure 1-2 displays the underlying pattern here: it that national security will benefit by innovations resulting is not so much the change in fuel economy as a dramatic from this Program. R&D will be closely coordinated with increase in annual miles driven by heavy vehicles. EPA so that critical vehicle emissions control breakthroughs cost-effectively address the increasingly stringent future EPA standards needed to improve the nation’s air quality. ecoNomic coNTriBUTioNs oF TrUcKs aNd TrUcKiNG Classes and Use Categories of Trucks and Buses Trucks and trucking are important contributors to the national income. According to the Economic Census of 2002 Industry classifies trucks and buses by weight based on the (DOC, Census Bureau, 2005), the truck transportation indus- vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or the maxi- try consisted of more than 112,698 separate establishments, mum in-service weight set by the manufacturer, or—in the with total revenues of $165 billion. These establishments trucking industry—on the gross vehicle weight (GVW) plus employ 1,437,259 workers, who take home an annual payroll the average cargo weight. The use categories of vehicles are of $47 billion. Truck and bus manufacturing also account for not as well defined as weight classes, and depend on widely a significant share of national income. According to the same varying industry usage. For example, the same vehicle may census, light-truck and utility-vehicle manufacturers have be called heavy-duty by one segment of the industry and total shipments of $137 billion. Heavy-duty-truck manufac- medium-duty by another. turing had sales of $16 billion. Another way to look at the Table 1-1 lists one often-used system of categories—the trucking industry’s economic contribution is to compare the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) of the DOT— revenue from trucks with other sectors in the transportation alongside the “common categories” used by many manufac- industry, in which case trucks account for about one-fourth turers, insurance companies, service shops, and truck drivers; of the industry’s total revenues (Figure 1-3). as can be seen, some category boundaries differ between the two lists. TABLE 1-1 Widely Used Truck Weight Classes and Categories Weight Class Minimum GVWR (lb) Maximum GVWR (lb) VIUS Category Common Category Class 1 NA 6,000 Light-duty Light duty Class 2 6,001 10,000 Light-duty Light duty Class 3 10,001 14,000 Medium-duty Light duty Class 4 14,001 16,000 Medium-duty Medium duty Class 5 16,001 19,500 Medium-duty Medium duty Class 6 19,501 26,000 Light-heavy Medium duty Class 7 26,001 33,000 Heavy-heavy Heavy duty Class 8 33,001 NA Heavy-heavy Heavy duty NOTE: GVWR, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating; VIUS, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey; NA, not available to the committee. SOURCE: Used by permission of Charlie Kerekes, Changin’ Gears, 2008. Available at http://changingears.com/rv-sec-tow-vehicles-classes.shtml. Accessed May 30, 2008.

OCR for page 7
0 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP The NaTioNal oBJecTiVe oF redUciNG oil 25,000 imPorTs 20,000 Trillions of Btus The president and the Congress have placed among Heavy trucks 15,000 the highest national objectives that of reducing fossil fuel Light trucks 10,000 imports (and in particular, petroleum). DOE’s EERE, parent Autos of the FCVT and 21CTP, has as its top priority: “Dramati- 5,000 cally reduce or even end dependence on foreign oil” by spur- 0 ring creation of a domestic biofuel industry; increasing the 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 viability and deployment of renewable energy technologies; 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances; Year leading by example through government’s own actions; con- FIGURE 1-1 Energy consumption of heavy trucks (more than tinuously improving the way EERE does business; reducing 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR]) compared with that the burden of energy prices; increasing the energy efficiency of light trucks and passenger1-1 Fig vehicles, 1970-2003. Note that curves of industry; and increasing the reliability and efficiency of are additive. For context, 1 gallon of gasoline contains roughly electricity generation and use.3 124,000 British thermal units (Btu), and 1 gallon of diesel fuel about While the fuel consumed per mile by light-duty vehicles 139,000 Btu. SOURCE: DOE, EERE, 2005. improved substantially between 1966 and 2003, that of the average heavy-duty vehicle remained nearly constant (Figure 1-4). The flat fuel economy of heavy duty trucks 30,000 was accompanied by a doubling of vehicle miles traveled 25,000 Miles per private Miles driven annually per year (Figure 1-2). Fuel economy (miles per gallon) for vehicle passenger cars and light trucks such as sport utility vehicles 20,000 Miles per light and pickups rose from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. truck 15,000 Fuel economy for passenger cars continued to rise through Miles per heavy truck 2003 whereas the fuel economy of light trucks decreased 10,000 from 2000 to 2003. 5,000 In fact, the U.S. transportation system relies nearly exclusively on petroleum, as shown in Figure 1-5 (DOE, 0 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 EIA, 2006). That dependence grows more each year, despite attempts to substitute other fuels and energy sources. Year The production of oil domestically, for its part, has FIGURE 1-2 Trends in annual miles driven by three different declined continuously since 1985, so more and more of the classes of vehicle: heavy trucks, light trucks, and passenger ve- nation’s fuels are imported (Figure 1-6). That fact alone hicles, 1966-2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007, Table 2.8. makes it increasingly vital to the national interest to reverse Fig 1-2 this trend. Trucks account for increasing highway transporta- tion energy use. Truck: $91.4 billion Transit and Ground Passenger TreNds iN heaVY-Vehicle emissioN Transportation: $14.4 billion reGUlaTioNs Water: $5.3 billion Emission standards have become increasingly stringent Rail: $26 billion Pipeline: $10.4 since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963. Their evolu- billion tion following the passage of the Clean Air Act is discussed in more detail in Appendix D, “Vehicle Emission Regula- tions.” These increasingly stringent standards have dictated that new technologies be developed to comply with them. Other As an additional challenge, increasingly stringent emission Transportation and Air: $80 billion standards for heavy-duty vehicles tend to adversely affect Support Activities: $75.5 billion fuel economy at a time when there are challenges to improe fuel economy. Recognizing these dual challenges, the 21CTP Warehousing and adopted the simultaneous goals of improving the thermal Storage: $26.1billion FIGURE 1-3 For-hire transportation services compared with other 3Ed Wall, DOE Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, “DOE sectors of the transportation industry. SOURCE: DOC, Census FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program,” Presentation to the com- Bureau, 2005. mittee, Washington. D.C., February 8, 2007, Slide 3. Figure 1-3

OCR for page 7
 ORGANIZATION ANd BACKGROUNd (Ehlmann and Wolff, 2005). In the early 1960s, when exhaust 25 emissions were unregulated, the subsequent exhaust emis- 20 sion regulations adopted by model year 2004 had reduced Miles per gallon Passenger exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles by the following vehicles 15 amounts, based on certification-test emission levels (EPA, Light trucks 10 2000): Trucks 5 • Hydrocarbons (HC), by 99 percent • Carbon monoxide (CO), by 96 percent 0 • Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), by 99 percent 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 01 05 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 Year The control of emissions from the engines of heavy-duty trucks with GVWR over 8,500 lb began in 1973 in California, FIGURE 1-4 Fuel economy (miles per gallon) of passenger ve- hicles, light trucks, and heavy-duty trucks (more than 10,000 lb), and in 1974 in the United States as a whole (Johnson, 1988). 1973-2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007. As shown in Figure 1-8, the progressively more stringent Fig 1-4 emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines followed trends similar to those for light-duty vehicles. 30,000,000 25,000,000 Coal Billion Btu 20,000,000 Biomass (ethanol) 15,000,000 Petroleum 10,000,000 25 (HC + CO/10 + NOx ) - g/mi Nat gas 5,000,000 Emission Standards 0 20 1949 1955 1961 1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 15 10 Year 5 FIGURE 1-5 Energy use by the U.S. transportation sector, 1949- 2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007. 0 Fig 1-5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Model Year FIGURE 1-7 Historical trend in exhaust emission standards for 8,000,000 (Thousands of Barrels) 7,000,000 light-duty vehicles, by model Fig 1-7 year. (The committee combined 6,000,000 Production individual emission standards for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon mon- 5,000,000 Net imports 4,000,000 oxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for illustration purposes.) Production 3,000,000 SOURCE: Data from Ehlmann and Wolff (2005). 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1961 1977 1981 1985 1989 1997 2001 2005P 1949 1953 1957 1965 1969 1973 1993 Year FIGURE 1-6 U.S. petroleum production and net imports, 1949- 2005 (thousands of barrels per year). SOURCE: Data from DOE, Fig 1-6 EIA, 2006, Annual Energy Review 2006, Washington, D.C., Table 5.1 efficiency of heavy-duty diesel engines while, at the same time, achieving the increasingly stringent 2010 emission standards (discussed in Chapter 3 and in Appendix D). FIGURE 1-8 Historical trend in federal exhaust emission stan- emission standards dards for heavy-duty diesel engines, by model year (in grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h), 1970-2010. HC, hydrocarbons; The progressively more stringent federal emission stan- Fig 1-8, bitmapped NMHC, nonmethane hydrocarbons. SOURCE: DOE, 2006a. dards for light-duty vehicles are illustrated in Figure 1-7

OCR for page 7
 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP The federal emissions standards for highway trucks were range of speed and load combinations commonly experi- harmonized with California standards beginning with model enced in use. The NTE requirement establishes an area (the year 2004. Emission standards that apply to model year 2007 “NTE zone”) under the torque curve of an engine where and later heavy-duty highway engines are given in Table 1-2. emissions must not exceed a specified value for any of the Federal regulations do not require that complete heavy-duty regulated pollutants. diesel vehicles be chassis certified, instead requiring the certification of their engines. Consequently, the emission emission standards Not addressed by the 21cTP standards are expressed in grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h) and require emission testing over the transient In addition to the previously discussed exhaust emission Federal Test Procedure (FTP) engine dynamometer cycle. standards that were incorporated as part of the 21CTP, several The useful lives of the engines are also shown in Table 1-3. other emission standards that affect heavy-duty trucks which The required useful life of an engine for a Class 8 truck are not among the goals of the 21CTP are as follows: (heavy heavy-duty diesel engines in trucks over 33,000 lb) is 435,000 miles, or 10 years, or 23,000 hours (EPA, 2006). • Eaporatie emissions—Federal and California stan- Additional emission testing requirements, first introduced dards control evaporative emissions to stringent levels in 1998 (Table 1-4) include the following: in gasoline passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In recognition of the high temperatures that diesel fuel • Supplemental Emission Test (SET) can experience in modern common rail fuel systems, • Not-to-Exceed (NTE) limits evaporative emission standards for diesel fuel vehicles have also been adopted. The SET is a 13-mode steady-state test that was intro- • On-board diagnostics—On-board diagnostic (OBD) duced to help ensure that heavy-duty engine emissions systems on vehicles ensure that the emission control are controlled during steady-state type driving, such as the system and other engine-related components are oper- operation of a line-haul truck on a freeway. The NTE limits ating properly (Dieselnet, 2005; EPA, 2006). Table 1-5 have been introduced as an additional instrument to ensure shows the timetable for implementation of OBD II for that heavy-duty engine emissions are controlled over the full heavy-duty vehicles. TABLE 1-2 Heavy-Duty Emission Standards: Model Year 2007 and Beyond Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM) (g/bhp-h) (g/bhp-h) (g/bhp-h) (g/bhp-h) 0.14a 0.20 a 15.5 0.01 aPhased in between 2007 and 2010 on a percentage sales basis: 50 percent for 2007-2009, 100 percent for 2010. TABLE 1-3 Service Classes Used by EPA Service Class Required Useful Lives of Engines Light heavy-duty diesel engine (LHDDE): 8 yr or 110,000 mi Under federal regulations, between 8,500 and 19,500 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); in California, between 14,000 and 19,500 lb GVWRa Medium heavy-duty diesel engine (MHDDE): 19,500 lb to 33,000 lb GVWR 8 yr or 185,000 mi Heavy heavy-duty diesel engine (HHDDE) (including those for diesel buses): heavier than 33,000 lb GVWR 10 yr or 435,000 mi or 23,000 hr aUnderfederal light-duty Tier 2 regulations, vehicles of GVWR up to 10,000 lb used for personal transportation are reclassified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV—primarily SUVs and passenger vans) and are subject to light-duty vehicle legislation. TABLE 1-4 Additional Emission Requirements Test Limits Supplemental Emission Test (SET) Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Standards 1.5 × FTP Standards Not-to-exceed (NTE) Limits

OCR for page 7
 ORGANIZATION ANd BACKGROUNd TABLE 1-5 Timetable for Implementation of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) II Systems for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (more than 14,000 lb GVWR) Regulatory Body Model Year Comments California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2007 Basic Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic (EMD) system CARB 2010 Proposed Comprehensive OBD II system U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010 Proposed Notice of Proposed Rule • defeat deices—Manufacturers must ensure that California had required it since September 1, 2006. The vehicle emission control systems operate in-use as allowable sulfur content for ULSD is 15 parts per million they do on the prescribed test cycles. If, without the (ppm), which is much lower than the previous U.S. on- manufacturer’s properly informing EPA, an emission highway standard for low-sulfur diesel (LSD) of 500 ppm. control system operates differently when in use than The rules mandate the use of ULSD in diesel engines. The it did in the test cycles, the emission control system is move to lower sulfur content not only reduces the emissions considered “defeated” and is called a “defeat device.” of sulfur compounds, which are blamed for acid rain, but also EPA may seek judicial penalties for each vehicle sold allows the application of advanced emission control systems containing a defeat device.4 that would otherwise be poisoned by these compounds. These systems, which will greatly reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulates, will begin phasing in to diesel carbon dioxide and Greenhouse Gases engines for highway applications in 2007(EPA, 2006). Carbon dioxide does not absorb energy radiated from the Sun to Earth (high-temperature, short-wavelength radiation), The Need to develop Nonpetroleum Fuels but absorbs radiation in the infrared region (low-temperature, long-wavelength radiation). Consequently, long-wavelength The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-058) heat radiated from Earth to space is absorbed by the atmo- amended the Clean Air Act to establish a Renewable Fuel sphere with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, thus Standard (RFS) program. The U.S. Congress gave EPA the raising the average temperature of the atmosphere (Obert, responsibility to coordinate with DOE, the U.S. Department 1973). of Agriculture, and stakeholders to design and implement Recently, a Supreme Court ruling declared carbon dioxide this first-of-its-kind program. Three months after the Energy and greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Policy Act of 2005 was signed by President George W. Bush, Air Act and empowered the EPA to regulate vehicle emis- in December 2005, EPA set a statutory default standard that sions. As a result, EPA began a regulatory process aimed at required 2.78 percent, which is 4.0 billion gallons, of the promulgating final rules, possibly as soon as 2008 (EPA, gasoline sold or dispensed in calendar year 2006 to be renew- 2007b). For engines using carbon-based fuels, potential car- able fuel. In April 2007, EPA finalized the regulations for the bon dioxide regulations will directly affect allowable vehicle RFS program for 2007 and beyond. These regulations require fuel-economy levels. For every pound of typical hydrocarbon nationwide volumes of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel fuel burned, 3.1 pounds of carbon dioxide are generated. annually by 2012 (EPA, 2007a). In addition to potential carbon dioxide regulations, future Owing to the certainty provided to investors by the RFS greenhouse gas regulations may also target other gases, such program, production capacity for ethanol and other renew- as methane, (CH4), nitrous oxides, (N2O), and halogenated able fuels has significantly increased since the passage of the fluorocarbons (HFCs). Such regulations could affect heavy Energy Policy Act. The construction of new and expanded trucks by requiring additional emission control systems and facilities is projected to continue. By 2012, nationwide vol- by requiring new or modified air conditioning systems that umes are projected to reach over 11 billion gallons, compared may impact fuel economy. to the 7.5 billion gallons required (EPA, 2007a). A renewable fuel is defined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a motor fuel that is produced from plant or animal recent Fuel regulations affecting products or wastes, as opposed to having fossil fuel sources. Future Vehicle emissions Renewable fuels include ethanol, biodiesel, and other motor Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel has been regulated vehicle fuels made from renewable sources. The RFS pro- by EPA through a new standard for sulfur content in on-road gram grants credit for both renewable fuels blended in to diesel fuel sold in the United States since October 15, 2006. conventional gasoline or diesel and those used in their neat (unblended) form as motor vehicle fuel (EPA, 2007b). 4See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa. Accessed September 7, 2007.

OCR for page 7
 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP saFeTY oF heaVY-dUTY TrUcKs standards for new vehicles.6 Many of the standards apply to all vehicles, inclusive of cars, light trucks, and heavy trucks. Highway safety remains a problem in the United States. These rules, for example, include standards for controls In spite of continued improvement in the crashworthiness of and displays, transmission shift lever sequence, windshield cars and trucks, the annual number of fatalities has remained defrosting and defogging systems, lamps and reflective nearly constant for the past decade, at more than 41,000, devices, rearview mirrors, seat belt assembly, flammability according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- of interior materials, and other automotive systems. tration (NHTSA).5 In 2005 the number of fatalities reached There are also NHTSA standards specifically for large 43,443. However, the fatality rate (per 100 million miles trucks and for buses. For example, an important standard driven) has declined from 1.73 in 1995 to 1.47 in 2005. Still, issued in January 1998, is FMVSS 233, which describes it remains vital that the United States continue to strive to the required characteristics of under-ride guard structures reduce the number of fatalities and injuries due to highway used at the rear of trailers to prevent smaller vehicles from accidents. driving under the trailer when striking it from the rear. As Accidents involving large trucks account for about 12 noted earlier, this type of accident, the smaller vehicle rear- percent of the total number of fatalities due to highway ending the trailer, is fairly common (causing 16 percent of accidents, generally as many as 5,000 each year during the truck related fatalities). FMVSS 232 describes standards for past decade. Some improvement was observed in 2006, as school bus seating and crash protection. Again, the NHTSA the fatality number dropped to 5,018 from 5,212 the previous standards specify new vehicle requirements. For vehicles year (Anonymous, 2007). According to the Federal Motor that are in service, DOT’s FMCSA is responsible for setting Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the DOT, large requirements for maintenance and inspection and for licens- trucks pulling semi-trailers (Class 8) accounted for almost ing the drivers. two-thirds of the truck-involved fatal crashes in 2005 (DOT/ As noted in Chapter 7, in spite of these new vehicle design FMCSA, 2007). standards and in-service operating requirements, substantial Compared with the number of people who die in accidents reductions in heavy truck related fatalities and injuries have involving Class 8 trucks and tractor-trailer combinations, not been realized. For that reason, the 21CTP includes goals substantially fewer people are killed in accidents involving for improving large-truck safety, and in particular, goals for medium-duty single-unit trucks (300 fatalities in 2005 for reducing fatalities and injuries associated with large-truck Classes 5 and 6 combined) due to the fact that these medium- accidents. In support of those goals, DOE and DOT have duty trucks typically operate at lower speeds, in urban areas, initiated a number of programs aimed at improving the safety and during daylight (DOE, 2006a, p. 59). Thus, the focus of of large trucks. DOE and DOT safety programs in the 21CTP has been on Previously the focus of vehicle safety has been crash Class 8 trucks. protection, including improvements in structural crush The number of fatalities associated with bus accidents is resistance, door and window retention during a crash, and also quite low compared with those related to large trucks. occupant protection systems such as air bags. However, it has In 2005, there was a total of 278 bus-related fatalities. become clear that in order to make significant reductions in Moreover, the safety record of school buses is very good. injuries and fatalities, it will be necessary to develop tech- On average, from 1995 through 2005, 21 school age children nologies, systems, and training programs to prevent crashes died each year as a result of school transportation accidents from occurring in the first place. More recently, research at (NHTSA, 2007). DOE and DOT has been directed at crash avoidance technol- Truck accidents have a direct impact on fuel consumption ogy for large trucks, including advanced braking systems, and the environment. Accidents involving large trucks and rollover warning and prevention systems, lane departure buses create significant highway traffic delays, particularly warning, drowsy driver detection systems, and collision in congested areas, with consequent increases in fuel usage warning systems. due to travel at low speeds and sitting in traffic at idle. There Many of these systems have been tested on the highway as is a corresponding increase in exhaust emissions during these part of Field Operational Tests, several of which are currently times. In some cases, the accidents involve vehicles carry- ongoing. Moreover, several of these advanced safety systems ing hazardous materials, creating an even more dangerous have been put into production, including the following: situation. The Department of Transportation is responsible for • Roll stability control systems, standards, rules, and regulations governing all vehicles, • Electronic stability control systems, including large trucks. DOT’s National Highway Traffic • Lane-departure systems, and Safety Administration is responsible for promulgating safety • Collision warning systems. 6See http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-Regs/index. 5See http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov. Accessed April 29, 2008. Accessed May 12, 2008.

OCR for page 7
 ORGANIZATION ANd BACKGROUNd A major DOT safety program is the Intelligent Transpor- emissions” as well as “Freedom for Americans to tation Systems (ITS) program. The ITS program is broad choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to in scope, touching on road design and operation, vehicle drive where they want, when they want”; and “Freedom technologies, human factors research and in-vehicle as well to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently.” The Office as intervehicle communications.7 The ITS programs involve of FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies (OFCVT) not only federal government agencies, but also heavy- and works with a variety of industry partners to identify light-vehicle manufacturers, state and local governments, goals and timetables for research and development. and contract research groups including universities. The overall objective is “to accelerate advancements in In summary, safety is an important part of the 21CTP, with technologies that enable reduced oil consumption and support from both DOE and DOT, with DOT providing the increased energy efficiency in passenger vehicles.” majority of the budget. As crash protection measures have The Partnership addresses a wide range of advanced not substantially reduced highway fatalities during the past automotive technologies, including fuel cells, hydro- decade, the main objective going forward will be to prevent gen production and storage systems, lightweight crashes using a myriad of crash avoidance technologies materials, electrical storage systems, and advanced and in-vehicle communication systems. Because driver combustion and emission controls. error is the cause of most highway accidents (Volpe Center • st Century Truck Partnership. As explained in this Highlights, 2002), it will be necessary to focus on driver chapter, the 21st Century Truck Partnership includes education, training, and law enforcement as well as advanced four federal agencies (DOE, DOD, DOT, and EPA) vehicle technologies. and 15 industry partners. Partnership activities are summarized in the introduction to this chapter.10 — The 21CTP is a cooperative research and develop- ParTNershiP acTiViTies oF The Freedomcar ment effort launched in 2000, in which the partners aNd Vehicle TechNoloGies ProGram work together to reduce fossil fuel imports and to The FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) pro- improve the physical environment by increasing gram is the home of two industry-government “partnership” vehicles’ energy efficiency, promoting use of alter- activities; one of these, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partner- native fuels, and reducing emissions of particulate ship, is described as follows on the program’s Web site:8 matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants. • FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. “The Partnership is — The 21CTP is more complex in its decision-making a collaborative effort among DOE, energy companies— structure than is the FCFP. It includes not only the BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, 15 partners identified earlier, but also four federal Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen (US) and agencies whose interests may not always coincide. the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) and partners—Chrysler Corporation LLC, Ford Motor BUdGeT TreNds oF The 21sT ceNTUrY TrUcK Company, and General Motors Corporation. ParTNershiP “The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership [FCFP] examines and advances the precompetitive, high-risk The 21CTP itself has only a small (and apparently dimin- research needed to develop the component and infra- ishing) research budget at DOE (Table 1-6). (Details of the structure technologies necessary to enable a full range research and development funding of the 21CTP and its par- of affordable cars and light trucks, and the fueling ent organization are given in Appendix C.) Appropriations infrastructure for them that will reduce the dependence to the 21CTP from fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY 2007 of the nation’s personal transportation system on (shown in Figure 1-9 as “Heavy Duty”) represent a declining proportion of the FCVT program (DOE, 2007, pp. 265ff).11 imported oil and minimize harmful vehicle emissions, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and freedom The challenge of analyzing multiagency “partnerships” of vehicle choice.”9 is underscored by the fact that no one can tell the committee The term “Freedom” refers to “Freedom from how much the various non-DOE parts of the 21CTP spend dependence on imported oil . . . and from pollutant on their activities. Even the DOE parts are clouded by “pro- prietary” restrictions imposed by industrial partners. The 21CTP effort centers on research and development 7Michael F. Trentacoste, Director, Office of Safety R&D, Federal High- to increase engine efficiency, improve the performance of way Administration, Turner Fairbank Highway Safety Center. “Federal hybrid powertrains, reduce fatalities through advanced safety Highway Administration Safety R&D Overview,” Presentation to the com- mittee, Washington D.C., February 8, 2007. 8See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/ 10See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/ freedomcar/index.html. Accessed May 22, 2008. 21centurytruck/index.html. Accessed May 22, 2008. 9See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/ 11Ken Howden, DOE, FCVT, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” Presenta- freedomcar/fc_partners.html. Accessed May 22, 2008. tion to the committee, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2007.

OCR for page 7
 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP TABLE 1-6 Funding of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (Department of Energy Funds Only), FY 1999-2008 (dollars in millions) FY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FY 2004 Revised Structure Appropriation ($ in millions) Requested Adanced Combustion Engine Combustion and Emission Control 3.400 3.200 3.668 4.176 4.705 3.333 8.312 3.317 3.680 3.000 Light-Truck Engine 14.800 17.411 17.783 15.778 14.734 12.495 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 NAa Heavy-Truck Engine 4.830 5.914 9.396 12.174 11.831 13.832 9.270 14.490 3.519 Waste Heat Recovery NA NA 1.000 0.500 0.488 2.469 3.435 1.500 3.806 2.521 Health Impacts NA 1.000 1.497 1.471 1.463 0.988 1.951 2.413 2.479 2.479 Off-highway Engine R&D NA NA NA 0.500 3.414 3.457 0.000 3.369 0.000 0.000 Vehicle Systems Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D Vehicle System Optimization 1.500 2.915 4.230 9.369 9.555 10.187 8.764 8.457 5.922 5.913 Truck Safety Systems NA NA 0.500 0.400 0.397 0.395 0.099 0.096 0.000 0.000 STICK Program NA NA NA 0.100 0.596 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Subsys. Integ. & Dev. — Heavy Hybrid NA 3.881 3.938 4.941 3.99 4.976 5.353 1.815 0.000 0.000 Fuels Technology Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels Heavy Trucks 2.700 3.873 4.854 5.853 7.996 6.321 5.876 3.375 3.511 2.623 Non-Petroleum Based Fuels & Lubes Heavy Trucks 3.300 2.743 3.241 3.695 1.408 1.383 0.690 0.000 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks 4.700 2.712 3.266 3.903 1.316 1.284 1.282 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fueling Infrastructure 0.200 2.000 1.979 1.966 0.906 0.889 1.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 Renewable & Synthetic Fuels Util. NA NA NA NA NA 0.395 1.367 2.940 3.059 4.031 Environmental Impacts NA 2.000 2.973 2.789 2.282 1.975 0.986 0.000 0.000 0.000 Materials Technologies Propulsion Materials Technology Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Matls. 5.300 5.871 6.009 5.756 5.705 5.778 4.858 4.258 3.900 4.885 Lightweight Materials Technology High Strength Wt. Redc’n Matls. 4.200 5.781 8.804 9.574 8.731 8.840 7.690 2.766 0.000 0.000 High Temp. Matls. Lab (HTML)b 5.500 2.000 5.588 5.502 5.463 5.531 6.015 7.217 4.374 4.375 0.733 0.979 1.141 1.142 0.925 1.188 Technical Support Serices TOTAL Heavy Vehicle Technologies 45.600 66.476 76.017 86.648 80.950 78.588 66.603 44.765 40.847 28.971 aNA, information not available to the committee. bHTML became a separate line item in FY 2003. SOURCE: Kenneth Howden, DOE, FCVT, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” Presentation to the committee, Washington D.C., March 28, 2007, Slide 13. systems, reduce parasitic and idling losses, and validate and In the part of the program administered by DOE/EERE, demonstrate these technologies. for example, the total appropriation each year is divided There is no single source of funds for the 21CTP, as was on the basis of several “technical areas,” which correspond probably intended by its creators (according to the presenta- to engines, lightweight technology, idle reduction, and so tion of Paul Skalny at the committee’s second meeting).12 on. In addition, they must maintain funding to companies Instead, each of the four agencies has its own stream of with multiyear cooperative agreements and with Coopera- funds. Agency personnel in the 21CTP meet frequently and tive Research and Development Agreements (in the DOE industrial partners meet frequently to ensure communication laboratories). about new technologies and new industrial needs. That is the extent of the coordination. oriGiN aNd scoPe oF This sTUdY In response to a request from the director of the DOE’s 12Paul Skalny, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, “The 21st Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, the Century Truck Initiative: Developing Technologies for 21st Century Trucks,” National Research Council formed the Committee to Review Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007.

OCR for page 7
 ORGANIZATION ANd BACKGROUNd 3. Examine and comment on the overall balance and ade- 200 quacy of the 21st Century Truck Partnership’s research 180 effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and schedules for each of the major technol- 160 Millions of US dollars ogy areas. 140 4. Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement in the various technical areas 120 under development. Light Duty 5. Examine and comment on the Partnership’s strategy for 100 accomplishing its goals, which might include such issues 80 Heavy Duty as (a) program management and organization; (b) the process for setting milestones, research directions, and 60 making Go/No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities 40 within DOE, other government agencies, the private sector, universities, and others; and (d) other topics that 20 the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals. 0 03 04 05 06 07 sTUdY Process aNd orGaNizaTioN Fiscal Year oF The rePorT FIGURE 1-9 Appropriations to the 21CTP, FY 2003-2007 (shown The committee held four meetings. Information-gathering as “Heavy Duty”) represent a declining proportion of the FCVT sessions included presentations on 21CTP activities by Program. FY 2008 request is not meaningful for comparison, representatives of the four federal agencies involved in Fig 1-9 because several major subprograms are being reprogrammed. 21CTP, as well as individuals outside the program with SOURCE: Kenneth Howden, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” expertise in the measurement and control of engine emis- Presentation to the committee, Washington D.C., March 28, 2007, sions, on issues related to light-duty and heavy-duty trucks, Slide 13. FY 2005-2008 FCVT funding data from DOE, 2007, and on development needs relevant to the 21CTP program FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 3, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Doc. No. DOE/CF-016, February. Available at (see Appendix B for a list of the presenters and their topics). http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/printable_ To clarify some aspects of the 21CTP, the committee also versions/ fcvt_budget.html. Accessed May 12, 2008. sent written questions to 21CTP representatives. The com- mittee’s conclusions and recommendations are based on the information gathered during the study and on the expertise and knowledge of committee members. Chapter 2 assesses the strategy for managing the 21CTP the 21st Century Truck Partnership (see Appendix A for bio- and also identifies management and process issues. Chapter graphical information on committee members). The commit- 3 reviews research and development programs in the engine tee was asked to fulfill the following statement of task: systems area. The topics addressed include engine thermal efficiency, fuels, exhaust aftertreatment systems, the High The committee will conduct an independent review of the Temperature Materials Laboratory of Oak Ridge National 21st Century Truck Partnership. In its review, the committee Laboratory, and health effects of diesel exhaust. will critically examine and comment on the overall adequacy Chapter 4 discusses programs in the area of heavy-duty and balance of the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accom- hybrid vehicles, and Chapter 5 reviews programs covering plish its goals, on progress in the program, and make recom- parasitic losses, such as aerodynamic drag, friction, and roll- mendations, as appropriate, that the committee believes can ing resistance. Chapter 6 reviews programs in the technology improve the likelihood of the Partnership meeting its goals. area of idle reduction, aimed at minimizing fuel consumption In particular, the committee will: of utility systems such as air conditioning and power steer- ing. Chapter 7 covers the safety research programs, including 1. Review the high-level technical goals, targets, and time- braking, rollover stability, visibility, and crashworthiness, of tables for R&D efforts, which address such areas as heavy all of the 21CTP partners. vehicle systems; hybrid electric propulsion; advanced internal combustion engines (ICEs); and materials Appendix A presents biographical sketches of the commit- technologies. tee members. Appendix B lists all of the public presentations 2. Review and evaluate progress and program directions at the committee’s four meetings. Appendix C contains since the inception of the Partnership toward meeting funding details of the research and development of the the Partnership’s technical goals, and examine ongoing FCVT program—that is, the parent program of the 21CTP. research activities and their relevance to meeting the Appendix D is a brief account of trends in federal and goals of the Partnership.

OCR for page 7
 REVIEW OF THE ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP state regulation of light- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. DOE, EIA (Energy Information Agency). 2006. “Petroleum Products Con- sumption.” Energy Information Sheets. Oct. Available at http://www.eia. Appendix E is a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html. Accessed the report. Appendix F compiles engineering data on light May 12, 2008. duty electric vehicles. Appendix G provides complete and DOE, EIA. 2007. Annual Energy Review. Table 2.8. Available at http:// up-to-date information on the 21CTP membership. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_23.pdf. Accessed May 12, The committee obtained a copy of the working draft of 2008. DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier EPA’s new “Smart Way Fuel Efficiency Test Protocol for Safety Administration). 2007. 2005 Large Truck Crash Overview. Publi- Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles” (EPA, 2007c), but did cation No. FMCSA-RI-07-045. January. Washington, D.C. not review or discuss it in detail, since it was not released Ehlmann, James, and George Wolff. 2005. Automobile Emissions—The until after the committee’s final meeting. Road Toward Zero. January. Air and Waste Management Association. It should be noted that the Energy Independence and EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Require- Security Act of 2007 (Public Law No. 110-140) includes a ments. EPA420-F-00-057. December. Washington, D.C.: Office of variety of measures that may affect the technology of heavy- Transportation and Air Quality. duty vehicles. It was enacted too late to be considered by the EPA. 2006. Regulatory Announcement: Proposed Rule on OBD for Heavy- committee. Duty Engines. EPA 420-F-06-058. Washington, D.C.: Office of Trans- portation and Air Quality. April. EPA. 2007a. EPA Finalizes Regulations for a Renewable Fuel Standard reFereNces (RFS) Program for 2007 and Beyond. EPA420-F-07-019. Washington, D.C.: Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Dieselnet. 2005. California adopts OBD requirements for heavy-duty EPA. 2007b. Green Book [Non-attainment Areas under the Clean Air Act of engines. July 22. Available at http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/ 1972 as Amended]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ 07carb.php. Accessed May 29, 2007. index.html. Accessed June 14, 2007. DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), Census Bureau. 2005. 2002 Eco- EPA. 2007c. Smart Way Fuel Efficiency Test Protocol for Medium and nomic Census, Industry-Product Analysis. Summary: 2002. Manufac- Heavy Duty Vehicles. Working Draft. EPA 420-P-07-003. November. turing Subject Series. Report No. EC02-31SX-1. March. Washington Washington, D.C. D.C.: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231sx1.pdf. Johnson, J. H. 1988. Automotive Emissions. Pp. 39-46 in Air Pollution, the Accessed May 12, 2008. Automobile, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006a. 21st Century Truck Partnership Press. Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. Washing- NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2007. Truck- ton, D.C. December. Related Fatalities Decline. Transport Topics. Washington, D.C. June 4. DOE. 2006b. FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, Multi-Year NRC (National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Review of the U.S. Depart- Program Plan: 2006–2011. Washington, D.C.: DOE, Office of Energy ment of Energy’s Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program. Washington, Efficiency and Renewable Energy. September. D.C.: National Academy Press. DOE. 2007. FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request. Vol. 3, Office of Chief NRC. 2001. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Financial Officer. Doc. No. DOE/CF-016. February. Washington, D.C. Generation of Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. DOE, EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 2005. Obert, E. R. 1973. Internal Combustion Engines and Air Pollution. Scranton, Transportation Energy Data Book, Chapter 2. 25th ed. Washington, Pa.: Intext Educational Publishers. D.C.: DOE, EERE. Available at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml. Volpe Center Highlights. 2002. Reducing Motor Vehicle Crashes with the Accessed May 12, 2008. DOT’s Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. Focus May/June.