From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:56 PM
To:	a.budd@isp-institute.com; Bill Buscher (E-mail); Bill Larch; Campbell, Bob; Cathy Devlin; charlie.passut@aftonchemical.com; Dan Pridemore; Dick Patrick (E-mail); Glen Fetterman; 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); Melissa Lovesky; Michael Minotti; Norbert Nann (E-mail); Riccardo Conti; Ron Buck; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Stacy Bond; Steve Kennedy; Victor Kersey; Warren Totten (E-mail); Wim Van Dam
Subject:	Unapproved minutes of our 11/8/07 teleconference
Participants -
Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Kevin Carabell; Jeff Clark; Riccardo Conti; Mark Cooper (Chairman); Pat Fetterman (Secretary); John Haeglin; Jesse Hamilton; Jim Moritz; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank

Minutes -
Mark Cooper opened the meeting with a quick review of the problem facing the panel:
Two recent calibration runs using TMC1005-2 have produced results significantly different (milder) from the original TMC1005 data set generated roughly ten years ago. One stand barely calibrated, the other did not.
The current plan is to end all T-8 calibrations on 1/5/08 to, hopefully, generate more data with TMC1005-2. There is a desire to accelerate this data generation, and Mark reviewed several options.
Bob Campbell stated that he believes we should use the mean of the two latest results on TMC1005-2 with the TMC1005 standard deviation to establish new targets for calibration with 1005-2. This sparked a lengthy debate over the need for more data, has test severity changed, or is TMC1005-2 different from 1005, the need to move forward and other issues. Finally, Bob Campbell offered a motion:
Reset the target th the mean of the two most recent TMC1005-2 results, reset the K value to 1.75 and use the standard deviation from the TMC1005 data set generated ten years ago. The motion was seconded by Jim Moritz. Following further discussion, the motion failed with (1) positive; (3) negative and (6) waive.

Mark Cooper asked if there were any alternatives to move forward. He also noted that on 1/6/08, the Mack T-8 test will become unavailable for testing under the curent scenario. Following another discussion, Jeff Clark noted that "donated" tests can be run at any time w/o impacting stand calibration. Once again, following discussion around this option, Jim Moritz offered a motion:
Calibration timing will revert back to original timing for each stand, with no forced end on January 5th. (This action is taken with the understanding that Intertek and SwRI will each "donate" one test on TMC1005-2. Intertek run will use stand calibrated on TMC1005-2; SwRI run will use a stand calibrated on TMC1004 - "donated" tests will not adversly impact current calibration periods.) The motion was seconded by Greg Shank, and it passed with (9) positive; (0) negative and (1) waive.
Following the ballot, Ron Buck indicated that TEI will supply test kits for these two runs at no charge.

Both the Chairman and the Test Sponsor i.e. Mark and Greg thanked the group for a job well done in reaching this outcome.

There will not be a Mack Surveillance Panel meeting in December in conjunction with the semi-annual ASTM meeting in Phoenix, AZ. A face-to-face meeting is tentatively planned for the week of January 21, 2008 in San Antonio.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat