Medium- and heavy-duty trucks, motor coaches, and transit buses - collectively, "medium- and heavy-duty vehicles", or MHDVs - are used in every sector of the economy. The fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of MHDVs have become a focus of legislative and regulatory action in the past few years. This study is a follow-on to the National Research Council's 2010 report, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. That report provided a series of findings and recommendations on the development of regulations for reducing fuel consumption of MHDVs. On September 15, 2011, NHTSA and EPA finalized joint Phase I rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption for on-road medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. As NHTSA and EPA began working on a second round of standards, the National Academies issued another report, Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: First Report, providing recommendations for the Phase II standards. This third and final report focuses on a possible third phase of regulations to be promulgated by these agencies in the next decade. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Introduction 2 Setting the Stage: Regulatory Horizons, Challenges, and Influences 3 Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement 4 Powertrain Technologies 5 Technologies for Reducing the Power Demand of MHDVs 6 Projected Benefits of Technologies on Fuel Consumption 7 Hybrid and Electric Powertrain Technologies 8 Battery Technology for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Hybrid and Electric Vehicles 9 Freight Operational Efficiency 10 Intelligent Transportation Systems and Automation 11 Manufacturing Considerations 12 Costs and Benefits 13 Alternative and Complementary Regulatory Approaches Appendix A: Committee Biographies Appendix B: Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Appendix C: Committee Activities Appendix D: Summary of Analysis of Engine and Vehicle Combinations Appendix E: Description of Drive Cycles Used for Compliance 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 Appendix G: Acronyms and Abbreviations

Affecting technological systems at a global-scale, space weather can disrupt high-frequency radio signals, satellite-based communications, navigational satellite positioning and timing signals, spacecraft operations, and electric power delivery with cascading socioeconomic effects resulting from these disruptions. Space weather can also present an increased health risk for astronauts, as well as aviation flight crews and passengers on transpolar flights. In 2019, the National Academies was approached by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation to organize a workshop that would examine the operational and research infrastructure that supports the space weather enterprise, including an analysis of existing and potential future measurement gaps and opportunities for future enhancements. This request was subsequently modified to include two workshops, the first ("Phase I") of which occurred in two parts on June 16-17 and September 9-11, 2020. The Phase II workshop occurred on April 11-14, 2022, with sessions on agency updates, research needs, data science, observational and modeling needs, and emerging architectures relevant to the space weather research community and with ties to operational needs. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of that workshop. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 The Space Weather Community 2 Research, Observation, and Modeling Needs: The Sun and Heliosphere 3 Research, Observation, and Modeling Needs: Magnetosphere, Ionosphere, Thermosphere, and Mesosphere 4 Research, Observation, and Modeling Needs: Ground Effects 5 Modeling, Validation, and Data Science 6 Research Infrastructure Appendixes Appendix A: Statement of Task Appendix B: Workshop Agenda Appendix C: Poster Session at the April 1114, 2022, Workshop Appendix D: Acronyms and Abbreviations Appendix E: Biographies of Committee Members and Staff

Since its inception in 1977 from an amalgam of federal authorities, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has administered numerous programs aimed at developing applied energy technologies. In recent years, federal oversight of public expenditures has emphasized the integration of performance and budgeting. Notably, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed in 1993 in response to questions about the value and effectiveness of federal programs. GPRA and other mandates have led agencies to develop indicators of program performance and program outcomes. The development of indicators has been watched with keen interest by Congress, which has requested of the National Research Council (NRC) a series of reports using quantitative indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of applied energy research and development (R&D). The first such report took a retrospective view of the first 3 years of DOE R&D programs on fossil energy and energy efficiency. The report found that DOE-sponsored research had netted large commercial successes, such as advanced refrigerator compressors, electronic lighting ballasts, and emission control technology for flue gas desulfurization. However, some programs were judged to be costly failures in which large R&D expenditures did not result in a commercial energy technology. A follow-up NRC committee was assigned the task of adapting the methodology to the assessment of the future payoff of continuing programs. Evaluating the outcome of R&D expenditures requires an analysis of program costs and benefits. Doing so is not a trivial matter. First, the analysis of costs and benefits must reflect the full range of public benefits that are envisioned, accounting for environmental and energy security impacts as well as economic effects. Second, the analysis must consider how likely the research is to succeed and how valuable the research will be if successful. Finally, the analysis must consider what might happen if the government did not support the project: Would some non-DOE entity undertake it or an equivalent activity that would produce some or all of the benefits of government involvement? This second report continues to investigate the development and use of R&D outcome indicators and applies the benefits evaluation methodology to six DOE R&D activities. It provides further definition for the development of indicators for environmental and security benefits and refines the evaluation process based on its experience with the six DOE R&D case studies. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Introduction 2 Results of Applying the Methodology 3 Methodology for Prospective Evaluation of Deparment of Energy Programs 4 Expert Panel Process 5 Conclusions and Recommendations References Appendix A PART Assessment Questions Appendix B Committee Biographies Appendix C Statement of Task Appendix D Letter Report Appendix E Committee and Panel Activities Appendix F Guidance on Prospective Benefits Evaluation Appendix G Information to Be Requested of the Department of Energy Appendix H Report of the Panel on DOE's Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Technology R&D Program Appendix I Report of the Panel on DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program Appendix J Report of the Panel on DOE's Natural Gas Exploration and Production R&D Program Appendix K Report of the Panel on DOE's Distributed Energy Resources Program Appendix L Report of the Panel on DOE's Light-Duty Vehicle Hybrid Technology R&D Program Appendix M Report of the Panel on DOE's Chemical Industrial Technologies Program

The light-duty vehicle fleet is expected to undergo substantial technological changes over the next several decades. New powertrain designs, alternative fuels, advanced materials and significant changes to the vehicle body are being driven by increasingly stringent fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards. By the end of the next decade, cars and light-duty trucks will be more fuel efficient, weigh less, emit less air pollutants, have more safety features, and will be more expensive to purchase relative to current vehicles. Though the gasoline-powered spark ignition engine will continue to be the dominant powertrain configuration even through 2030, such vehicles will be equipped with advanced technologies, materials, electronics and controls, and aerodynamics. And by 2030, the deployment of alternative methods to propel and fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation, including autonomous vehicles, will be well underway. What are these new technologies - how will they work, and will some technologies be more effective than others? Written to inform The United States Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards, this new report from the National Research Council is a technical evaluation of costs, benefits, and implementation issues of fuel reduction technologies for next-generation light-duty vehicles. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles estimates the cost, potential efficiency improvements, and barriers to commercial deployment of technologies that might be employed from 2020 to 2030. This report describes these promising technologies and makes recommendations for their inclusion on the list of technologies applicable for the 2017-2025 CAFE standards. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Introduction 2 Technologies for Reducing Fuel Consumption in Spark-Ignition Engines 3 Technologies for Reducing Fuel Consumption in Compression-Ignition Diesel Engines 4 Electrified Powertrains 5 Transmissions 6 Non-Powertrain Technologies 7 Cost and Manufacturing Considerations for Meeting Fuel Economy Standards 8 Estimates of Technology Costs and Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness 9 Consumer Impacts and Acceptance Issues 10 Overall Assessment of CAFE Program Methodology and Design Appendix A: Statement of Task Appendix B: Committee Biographies Appendix C: Presentations and Committee Meetings Appendix D: Ideal Thermodynamic Cycles for Otto, Diesel, and Atkinson Engines Appendix E: SI Engine Definitions and Efficiency Fundamentals Appendix F: Examples of Friction Reduction Opportunities for Main Engine Components Appendix G: Friction Reduction in Downsized Engines Appendix H: Variable Valve Timing Systems Appendix I: Variable Valve Lift Systems Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines Appendix K: DOE Research Projects on Turbocharged and Downsized Engines Appendix L: Relationship between Power and Performance Appendix M: HCCI Projects Appendix N: Effect of Compression Ratio of Brake Thermal Efficiency Appendix O: Variable Compression Ratio Engines Appendix P: Fuel Consumption Impact of Tier 3 Emission Standards Appendix Q: Examples of EPA's Standards for Gasoline Appendix R: Impact of Low Carbon Fuels to Achieve Reductions in GHG Emissions (California LCFS 2007 Alternative Fuels and Cleaner Fossil Fuels CNG, LPG) Appendix S: NHTSA's Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies and Estimated Costs of Technologies Appendix T: Derivation of Turbocharged, Downsized Engine Direct Manufacturing Costs Appendix U: SI Engine Pathway NHTSA Estimates Direct Manufacturing Costs and Total Costs Appendix V: SI Engine Pathway NRC Estimates Direct Manufacturing Costs Alternative Pathway, Alternative High CR with Exhaust Scavenging, and Alternative EVAS Supercharger Appendix W: Technologies, Footprints, and Fuel Economy for Example Passenger Cars, Trucks, and Hybrid Passenger Cars Appendix X: Full System Simulation Modeling of Fuel Consumption Reductions Appendix Y: Acronym List

In July 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) appointed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 2, to conduct an independent review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies-the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-and 15 industrial partners. The purpose of this Partnership is to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, increase heavy-duty vehicle safety, and support research, development, and demonstration to initiate commercially viable products and systems. This is the NRC's second report on the topic and it includes the committee's review of the Partnership as a whole, its major areas of focus, 21CTP's management and priority setting, efficient operations, and the new SuperTruck program.

The 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) works to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, increase heavy-duty vehicle safety, and support research, development, and demonstration to initiate commercially viable products and systems. This report is the third in a series of three by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that have reviewed the research and development initiatives carried out by the 21CTP. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Third Report builds on the Phase 1 and 2 reviews and reports, and also comments on changes and progress since the Phase 2 report was issued in 2012. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Introduction and Background 2 Management Strategy and Priority Setting 3 Engine Systems, Aftertreatment, Fuels, Lubricants, and Materials 4 Hybrid Vehicles 5 Vehicle Power Demands 6 Engine Idle Reduction 7 Safety 8 SuperTruck Program 9 Efficient Operations Appendixes Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members Appendix B: Committee Meetings and Presentations Appendix C: 21CTP Responses to Findings and Recommendations from NRC Phase 2 Report Appendix D: 21CTP Project Inventory and Summary of 21CTP Goals Appendix E: Acronyms

Documentary directed by Paul Crompton and Suri Krishnamma. The film tells the story of West Ham United Football Club's relocation from their historic home at the Boleyn Ground to the London Stadium, with insight and opinion provided by club manager Slaven Bilic, team captain Mark Noble, actor Ray Winstone, the club's owners and of course the fans.

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the report Warfighter Support: Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body Armor Test Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding, which commented on the conduct of the test procedures governing acceptance of body armor vest-plate inserts worn by military service members. This GAO report, as well as other observations, led the Department of Defense Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, to request that the National Research Council (NRC) Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences conduct a three-phase study to investigate issues related to the testing of body armor materials for use by the U.S. Army and other military departments. Phase I and II resulted in two NRC letter reports: one in 2009 and one in 2010. This report is Phase III in the study.
Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III provides a roadmap to reduce the variability of clay processes and shows how to migrate from clay to future solutions, as well as considers the use of statistics to permit a more scientific determination of sample sizes to be used in body armor testing. This report also develops ideas for revising or replacing the Prather study methodology, as well as reviews comments on methodologies and technical approaches to military helmet testing. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III also considers the possibility of combining various national body armor testing standards.

This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfectionssuch as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed worksworldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.++++The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition identification: ++++ Vitam Et Placita Critolai Phaselitae Philosophi Peripatetici... Examine Sistit M. Ioan. Bened. Carpzov Critolaus (of Phaselis.)