From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Friday, January 25, 2008 3:36 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:	Unconfirmed minutes of January 25, 2008 teleconference of the Mack Surveillance Panel
Participants: Mark Cooper (chair); Pat Fetterman (sec'y), Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Jeff Clark; Jim Gutzwiller; Jesse Hamilton; Victor Kersey; Jim Matasic; Jim Moritz; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank

The meeting was called to order at 10:35 am by the chairman, Mark Cooper. He noted that Jim Rutherford had circulated an analysis of reference oil data and suggested that Jim review his presentation.
As Jim was starting, he noted that one of the four tests in his analysis had the validity code RC. Scott Richards offered that was his test, and it had missed inlet air restriction by 0.02 versus the minimum. I.e. the result was 2.23 versus a minimum of 2.25. This led to a discussion of the actual TMC1005-2 data set which concluded that there are three tests intended for calibration, one of which is invalid, and one "donated" test. Only the three valid tests are to be considered for target setting.
Greg Shank indicated that he had been concerned that the test may have shifted, but he is now leaning towards a probable shift the the performance of the reference oil batch TMC1005-2. Still, there is a need to support the T-8 test since it doesn't seem possible to develop a T-11 correlation. We need to go ahead and set targets - which will probably require some level of engineering judgement.
Jim Motitz offered that Intertek will be running an additional TMC1005-2 run, probably in about one month, but it was agreed that we need to take action now to develop a way forward.
This was followed by an extended discussion of potential ways forward to develop reference oil targets which will keep the test available. The primary concern was over the very tight standard deviation of the RV48 and RV2 data sets for TMC1005-2 and how to allow additional tests to be brought in without either rejecting "good" tests or accepting "bad" tests which could blow up the range for the standard deviation, depending on how the data are handled.
The final outcome was a motion by Jim Moritz and a second by Bob (I'm not going to say "I told you so") Campbell:
Set the LTMS mean target using the three test average from TMC oil 1005-2, set standard deviation using the five test S.D. from TMC oil 1005 and use a "K" value of 1.75. Update the mean value using the new reference result before evaluating the new test.
Review all reference oil data on TMC1005-2 following the accumulation of five results on TMC1005-2.
This motion passed with (9) affirmative, (0) negative and (1) waive.
A face to face meeting of the Surveillance Panel is targeted for March 11, 12 or 13 in San Antonio with SwRI as the host.
(Following the meeting, Jim Moritz confirmed that the second week in March is also better for Cummins to attend Surveillance Panel meetings.)
With no other business brought forward, Mark adjourned the meeting at 11:20 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat