From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:25 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 Miiller; 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 cobbs; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Steve Kennedy; Victor Kersey; Wim Van Dam
Subject:	Unconfirmed minutes of our July 25, 2008 teleconference.
Meeting attendees -
Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Jeff Clark; Riccardo Conti; Mark Cooper; Pat Fetterman; Ken Goshorn; Jim Matasic; Jim Moritz; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank.

Minutes:
Mark C. noted that we now have (5) T-11 tests with TMC1005-2. Do we want to adjust SA's  based on these five tests?
There was a discussion during which Jeff C. noted that he didn't think we really had sufficient data, but he wouldn't fight doing so as long as we re-addressed the SA's following ten tests. This resulted in a Motion by Scott Richards with a second by Jim Moritz to fix targets at five tests and use appropriate SA's until we have accumulated ten tests at which time we will re-address new SA's. Motion is effective for all tests having an EOT of 7/25/08 or later.

T-12 reference tests possible with "new" rings:
Riccardo Conti - XOM has candidates pending and will not be able to run an early reference. Possible start by early October.
Jim Matasic - LZ has 3-4 candidates pending, but will consider running an early reference - no timing.
Greg Shank - No response from ISP. Jeff C. noted that he thinks there may be vacation issues and Armel may be out until mid-August.
Mark C. noted that this puts the T-12 test in limbo.
In response to a question, Jeff C. noted that the next "required" reference tests are in October, November and January.
Ron B noted that he had heard from "a couple" of labs regarding "old" ring availability, but not all.
Scott R. stated that SwRI would declare their last reference attempt as "operationally valid" and he would run another reference.
There was a discussion regarding the use of "split" tests, and Jeff C. noted that doing so would require buy-in beyond the Surveillance Panel and himself. It would need to go at least to the HDEOCP.
Mark C. offered to prepare a "white paper" for discussion going forward.
Jeff C. offered a short discussion of how the M11 "split" tests using crossheads had been handled, and he noted that the decision to go with "split" tests was made while there was still a good supply of hardware. Our problem is that we do not have a large supply of "old" parts.
Mark C. noted that we need to get an accurate inventory of "old" rings and he agreed to produce a "strawman" for a way forward to attempt to get SP consensus. Questions of what to include in "strawman"-
- Split tests? - yes
- Background & history? - yes
- Donated tests /shared funding of reference tests? - no decision
TEI is to determine the batch number and date code for any remaining T-10 rings.
Ken Goshorn noted that he had supplied (5) sets of "old" and "new" rings to the ring supplier for detailed geometric comparison and he will feed back any data to the Panel.

Respectfully submitted,
Pat