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 110
APPENDIX C Statement of Task and Related Letters from PNGV STATEMENT OF TASK This Phase 4 independent evaluation will be directed towards the following tasks: In light of major technical accomplishments since the third review and technical barriers that remain to be overcome, and the response by the PNGV to previous committee recommendations, examine the overall balance and adequacy of the PNGV research effort to meet the program goals and requirements, i.e., technical objectives, schedules, and rate of progress necessary to meet these requirements. Examine the PNGV technology selection process including how the PNGV is making choices, and the role of government in the PNGV program after the technology selection process is completed. Consider and comment on how the PNGV program should interface, if appropriate, with the other federal research programs. Prepare a fourth peer review report. Information will be gathered from PNGV representatives on the program's progress and plans for continued research and development. PNGV's technology selection process will be examined.
OCR for page 111
June 20, 1997 Mr. Douglas C. Bauer National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA-280 Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Doug: This letter is to clarify the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle's position on how we would like the Peers to treat the issue of ''resources". We want the focus of the 4th Review to be on the technical issues (Are we looking on the right technologies? Do we have the right technical program goals and plans? etc.) and on our rate of progress on these technology issues. We do not want the Peers to judge the PNGV effort as a conventional project where resources are the prime influence on rate of progress. Therefore, we are not specifically asking the Peers to evaluate "resources" throughout the PNGV. When the Peers feel the rate of progress is inadequate in a particular technology area, we expect the Peers to investigate why and to recommend changes, as they have previously. It would be appropriate for the Peers to investigate the range of potential causes of inadequate progress, including but not limited to, the type and adequacy of the resources. I trust this helps clarify our views on "resources" and we look forward to a good discussion of the rate of progress of our various technical programs.
OCR for page 112
December 16, 1997 Dr. James Zuccehetto National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Dear Jim: I am responding to the question you and Trevor Jones raised as to whether this year's Peer Review of the PNGV program should be extended to look at Goals 1 and 2. As you know, Goal 1 covers advanced manufacturing technologies and Goal 2 covers the application of fuel economy and emission technologies to the current generation of vehicles. The Partnership does not feel a specific, detailed review of Goals 1 and 2 is needed this year. We feel it is very important to have a thorough and thoughtful review of the Goal 3 technical programs and the technology selection decisions. Many, if not most, of the Goal 1 and 2 results are embedded in the Goal 3 projects, which we reviewed with the Peers. For these reasons we think the focus of this year's effort should continue to be on Goal 3. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistant to you on this matter, cc: Gary Bachula Trevor Jones PNGV Directors via USCAR
Representative terms from entire chapter: