MINUTES

ETM / Annex 16 Telcon

May 26, 2009

Attendees:

Steve Arrowsmith

Will Dodds 

Jim Elwood

Erika Herms

Werner Hoermann

Curtis Holsclaw

Dave Lister

Bryan Manning

Ed McQueen 

Dom Sepulveda

1. Comments/questions if any regarding CTG London Meeting WPs

Comments were to be posted by May 20th. The Group, by means of silence, did not report 

any comments or questions regarding WP05 and WP06.

2. EASA proposals on “Application Process for Exemptions to NOx 

Production Cut-off Requirements”.

Werner walked the group through, line by line, the EASA draft proposal “ETM generic 

application process for exemptions to NOx emissions production cut-off standards”. The 

proposal, in outline format, was in five parts:

Scope

Application

Review Process

Approval

Registration and Communication

This draft outline was presented with a request to review the approach, categories and 

preliminary questions which need to be addressed and answered as development 

proceeds. Although many of the questions and issues concerning Process would be 

affected by Criteria, it was suggested that initial discussion be focused on this outline 

alone and questions relative to Criteria be held until the suggested Criteria in Agenda 

item 3 be reviewed the FAA/EPA.
Ed informed the group that the FAA Certification Office was reviewing the FAA 

Certification Process and he would get back to the group as soon as information became 

available.

A number of questions and concerns were voiced which will require future consideration:

 Would this outline be something to be included in the ETM to provide detailed 

guidance on some generic process for Certification Officers? An immediate 

observation to the question was however the guidance material was handled in the 

ETM there would need to be a link from the Annex to the ETM.

 The situation with spare and replacement engines is confused both in definition 

(are replacement engines spares?) and in sorting out how they can be handled 

within the regulatory framework. 

 Discussion of spares led to a lengthy discussion about the proposal to identify

exempt engines by name plate and in some fashion in the ICAO Data Bank. 

 How are we going to bring in other, non WG3 authorities before we go to far 

down the road, e.g., Russia, China, Japan, India, Brazil? Experience with gaining 

cooperation from some of these countries has not been good.

3. FAA / EPA suggested “Criteria for Annex 16 and ETM Text for 

Exemptions for Production Cut-Off”.

The group assessed the FAA/EPA proposed Criteria as submitted for discussion. The 

discussion followed the same questions and concerns listed above and needn’t be 

repeated.

ACTION: Steve is looking for feedback to EASA in the next couple of weeks to keep to 

a reasonable schedule given the WG3 and SG time table. Ed and Bryan are in agreement 

and targeting the WG3 meeting in September. 

4. Appendix 3 Attachment A – Specification for HC Analyzer.

Discussion continues about concerns with the FID temperature difference between SAE 

ARP 1256C and the Annex. E-31 has taken this under advisement and anticipates

making changes in the next revision of 1256 a process which is currently underway 

under the sponsorship of Dave Christie, vice chair of E-31. Werner, Jim Elwood and 

Dave have been in contact and, in the expectation of changes to 1256, are considering

new text for the ETM which would provide for an acceptable range of FID temperatures 
(say 160 °C to 210 °C) with some appropriate stability limits (say ± 10 °C). The 

inclusion of stability limits remains under discussion. E-31, in the current version of 

ARP 1256C, removed the requirement for specific stability limits, which were in the 

original version and which are in the Annex, reasoning that the effect is small and will 

be controlled via the span drift requirements. While this is true in an operational sense, 

i.e., it is unlikely to be an observable problem, it is technically incorrect. Span drift and 

the changes in output due to variations in FID temperature are independent variables and 

should be recognized as such. Replacement of stability limits eliminates confusion. 

Additionally, setting stability limits would provide clarification to what is meant by Set 

(and maintain) the temperature of the FID and add would provide for consistency with 

the analyzer specifications of commercially available Total Hydrocarbon Analyzers. 

Action: Werner, Jim and Dave to continue the discussion of the need for stability

limits, agree to a temperature range consistent with modern hydrocarbon analyzers 

current practice and the intent of the Standard and draft new ETM text for group review.

5. Appendix 3 Attachment B – Specification for CO and CO2 Analyzers

No comments yet on the draft. Jim commented that the E-31 effort to revise ARP1256C 

would include reviewing the specifications for all of the analytical instruments including 

CO and CO2 and NOx.

6. New Business

No discussion because of time limitations but Ed has some questions about the proposed 

ETM text for Chapter 3 on SST and will bring them up later.

Next telcon scheduled for July 21 

.