From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Monday, November 27, 2006 4:10 PM
To:	Armel Budd; Bill Buscher (E-mail); Bill Larch (E-mail); Campbell, Bob; Cathy Devlin; charlie.passut@aftonchemical.com; Dan Pridemore; Dick Patrick (E-mail); Glen Fetterman; Greg Miller; greg.shank@volvo.com; Hind Abi-Akar; James Gutzwiller; James Matasic (E-mail); Jeff Clark; Jesse Hamilton; Jim McGeehan; jim.moritz@intertek.com; Jim Rutherford; joe.franklin@intertek.com; John Haegelin; Keith Selby; kenneth.goshorn@volvo.com; Mark Cooper; Matt Urbanak (E-mail); Michael Minotti; Norbert Nann (E-mail); Riccardo Conti; Ron Buck; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Stacy Bond; Steve Kennedy; Warren Totten (E-mail); Wim Van Dam
Subject:	Unconfirmed minutes of our Nov. 27, 2006 teleconference.
Teleconference participants -
Mark Cooper, Chairman; Pat Fetterman, Secretary; Armel Budd; Bob Campbell; Greg Shank; Jim Matasic; Jeff Clark; Jim Rutherford; Riccardo Conti; Scott Richards; Andy Broff; Jim Moritz

Agenda Items -
1) T-12 limits for older categories
2) T-8A reference timing

Discussion -
The meeting was called to order at 10:30 am by the Chairman, Mark Cooper, but a role call revealed that several key panel members had not yet called in. Mark called a brief recess while he made a few reminder calls.
1) When the call re-convened, it started with a discussion of the status of the T-12 to T-10 limits which were endorsed by the HDEOCP. Pat Fetterman noted that in order to change D4485, these limits must still pass a ballot of the full subcommittee B. Following a short discussion, Mark Cooper stated that he will contact Lyle Bowman about putting together a "B" ballot and report back to the group.
The group then moved to a discussion of the T-9 and T-6 limits proposed by Phil Scinto in a presentation to the June HDEOCP meeting. Mark Cooper noted that Oronite is having difficulty reading the T-12 to a T-6, since the tests measure different performance parameters. Jim Moritz queried how we are currently handling the lack of T-6 availability, and both Bob Campbell and Jim noted that D4485-06 currently has limits for both the T-9 (150 mg RWL & 40 microns liner wear) and T-10 (180 mg & 47 microns) to be used in place of the T-6.
Greg Shank noted that we have obviously developed these limits in the past, so can we now either develop limits for the T-12, or recommend another course of action to the HDEOCP?
Bob Campbell stated that he believes the proposed limits for the T-12 to T-6 (180 mg and 47 microns) are too liberal, as the T-12 shows lower ring and lliner wear than the T-10. He suggested that limits more like 150-160 mg and 40 microns would be more in line with the reduced wear seen in the T-12.
Following several minutes of discussion Greg Shank proposed that we table further action until Friday morning, December 1, 2006; and then hold another telecon to ballot "some limit" to forward to the HDEOCP at its December 5th meeting.
Pat Fetterman noted that the ACC PAPTG has discussed this issue, and offered to check with Joan Evans regarding the status.
(Done, Joan stated that they had discussed the issue, and all of the companies had agreed to do one last check internally, but they did not reach consensus.)
2) Jeff Clark reviewed the proposed wording he had developed to describe the allowed number of T-8A tests in a reference period. This wording was circulated by Mark Cooper in the meeting agenda, and repeated here:
A9.1.1.1 - A maximum of 600 h of T8-A non-reference test time is permitted without counting against the 3000 h calibration period in Section 9.5.1. Such tests shall be declared solely as T8-A tests prior to test start and shall not exceed 150 h in length. If a test fails to meet either condition, then the entire test length shall count against the 3000 h limit in Section 9.5.1. It is the responsibility of the test lab to maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate the intent of running solely a T8-A test. T-8 and T-8E tests that abort at or prior to 150 h count against the 3000 h calibration period.
Following a short discussion, the last sentence was changed to read:
T-8 and T-8E test starts count against the 3000 h calibration period.
 
A motion to accept the revised wording was made by Scott Richards and seconded by Jim Moritz, and the motion passed with 8 affirmative, 0 negative and 2 waive.
This clarification will be sent to "B" as an information letter for ballot.

Several "short" issues were approved by the group for additional information letters:
0) T-11 rebuild information letter.
0) T-11 used oil "solid" or "TVTM" will be changed to >400,000 cP.
0) T-11 valve lash information letter.
0) TMC will stop monitoring the T-10 test.

Three other issues were held for later discussion:
0) Fuel sulfur method - Greg Shank may offer a recommendation.
0) Piston deposit measurement - negative to removal.
0) Removal of T-10 from the Panel Scope and Objectives.

Next meetings -
Teleconference set for Friday, December 1, 2006 at 10:30 am EST.
Face to face meeting targeted for the week of January 22, 2007. Mark Cooper to contact the Cummins and Caterpillar Panel chairs to co-ordinate meetings.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat