### MINUTES ETM / Annex 16 Telcon May 2 6 , 2009 Attendees: Steve Arrowsmith Will Dodds Jim Elwood Erika Herms Werner Hoermann Curtis Holsclaw Dave Lister Bryan Manning Ed McQueen Dom Sepulveda 1. C omments/questions if any regarding CTG London Meeting WPs Comments were to be posted by May 20 th . 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 b y 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 Registrati on 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 b y 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 review ed 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 a

bout the proposal to identify exempt engines b y 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 anticipate s 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 cons idering new text for the ETM which would provide for an acceptable range of FID temperatures(say

1 60 ° 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 versi on of ARP 1256 C , removed the requirement for specific stability l imits , 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 l imits eliminates confusion. Additionally, s etting stability l imits would provide clarification to what is meant by S et (and maintain) the temperature of the FID and add would provide for consistency with the analyz er specifications of commercially available T otal 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 analyz ers current practice and the intent of the Standard and draft new E TM text for group review. 

### 5. Appendix 3 Attachment B

– Specification for CO and CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 and NO x . 

### 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

.