Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix F: Summary of Committee's First Report: Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report
Pages 367-373

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 367...
... 57105) finalizing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for on-road MHDVs (the "Phase I rule")
From page 368...
... (Recommendation 3.1) GEM is a relatively simple model focused on aerodynamics, rolling resistance, speed, weight, and idle control, and as such it is not capable of acknowledging efficiency and GHG emissions changes associated with engine and transmission design, the integration of advanced powertrains, alternative fuels, hybrid and electric vehicles, and optimal component management.
From page 369...
... Natural gas engines are well developed although improvements can be pursued in engine efficiency, maintenance costs, and on-board vehicle storage costs. Natural gas's inherent GHG benefit by its low carbon content (approximately 28 percent)
From page 370...
... Recommendation S-6: NHTSA and EPA should develop a separate standard for natural gas vehicles as is presently the case for diesel- and gasoline-fueled vehicles. Factors NHTSA and EPA should consider in setting the standard include the maximum feasible ability of natural gas engines to achieve reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption, the uncertainties involved with the various alternatives, the impact of duty cycles on the ability to comply with the vehicle standards, the cost of the technology, and rapid growth of the market for natural gas engines and vehicles.
From page 371...
... The cost effectiveness of using aerodynamic devices on these additional categories of trailers depends on their annual mileage accumulation and average speed, among other considerations such as access to the trailer underbody, and needs further assessment and quantification. Recommendation S-10: NHTSA, in coordination with EPA, should determine whether it would be practical and cost effective to include with the regulation of van trailers the regulation of other types of trailers such as pups, flatbeds, and container carriers, as doing so could substantially increase overall fuel savings.
From page 372...
... Another viable approach would entail adjusting size and weight restrictions on trucks. For example, this might include greater use of vehicles that have favorable LSFC such as longer combination vehicles, which have greater freight capacity than the notional tractor-trailer, which can have a combined gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds.5 While some nonvehicle alternative approaches for reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions may be beyond NHTSA's delegated authority, the Agency can work with other agencies with appropriate authority as well as encourage private actors to consider such strategies to complement and support NHTSA's standards.
From page 373...
... While the NHTSA-stated intent of the Phase I rule was to base targets on off-the-shelf technologies, the new baseline for setting a Phase II rule will be drawn from more current vehicles and will consider the different degrees of penetration attained by both off-the-shelf and future and advanced technologies by 2018. Recommendation S-17: NHTSA's Phase II rule should take the current and projected incremental fuel consumption reductions and penetration rates of the various technologies into careful consideration: These incremental reductions and penetration rates should be updated from those that were projected in the Phase I rulemaking.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.