Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
22 Appendix E Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the NASEM Report Review Committee. The purposes of the independent review are to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu- tional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The commit- tee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Christopher Barkan, University of Illi- nois at UrbanaâChampaign; James O. Berger (NAS), Duke University; Grady Cothen, consultant; Peter Klauser, consultant; Kevin J. Renze, consultant; Walter Rosenberger, Norfolk Southern Corporation; John M. Samuels, Jr. (NAE), Revenue Variable Engineering, LLC; Roger R. Schmidt (NAE), International Business Machines Corporation; Howard A. Stone (NAS/NAE), Princeton University; and Terry Tse, Federal Railroad Administration (retired). Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the re- port before its release. The review of the report was overseen by the review coordinator, Susan Hanson (NAS), Clark University (emerita), and the review monitor, Robert Sproull (NAE), University of Massa- chusetts at Amherst. Appointed by NASEM, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the committee and the institution.
Â 21 ï· DOTâs Analysis and Test Plan to Assess the Effectiveness of ECP Brakes in Reducing the Risks Associated with HHFT Trains, Version 0.9 with notes on status as of August 3, 2017. Materials submitted by Joseph Brosseau [Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI)]: ï· Additional data relating to AAR/TTCI modeling analysis. ï· Data from AAR/TTCI relating to the analysis presented in the report Analysis and Modeling of Benefits of Alternative Braking Systems in Tank Car Derailments (R-1007). Materials submitted by Michael Rush (Association of American Railroads): ï· Memo from Todd Treichel (RSI-AAR Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project), dated October 19, 2016, providing information on the effects of train speed at the time of derailment on the conditional probability of release for derailed railroad tank cars. ï· Comments of the Association of American Railroads from Louis Warchot and Michael Rush (AAR) before the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HN-251). ï· Safety Performance of Tank Cars in Accidents: Probabilities of Lading Loss (RA 05-02), Railway Supply Institute and Association of American Railroads, January 2006. Comments from Kevin Renze (consultant) concerning suggested data for the NASEM committee to request and review from FRA and AAR/TTCI. Letter from Robin Rorick, American Petroleum Institute, dated July 21, 2017.